JHT 


R  U   F  U  S          KIN   G- 


AMERICAN     9 
ELOQUENCE 

STUDIES   IN  AMERICAN 
POLITICAL  HISTORY 


EDITED,  WITH  INTRODUCTIONS,  BY 

ALEXANDER    JOHNSTON 

Late  Professor  of  Jurisprudence  and  Political  Economy 
in  the  College  of  New  Jersey 

RE-EDITED,    WITH    HISTORICAL   AND 
TEXTUAL  NOTES,  BY 

JAMES  ALBERT  WOODBURN 

Professor  of  American  History  and  Politics 
in  Indiana  University 


VOLUME  II. 


New  York  and  London 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

Subscription  Department 


COPYRIGHT,  1896 

BY 
G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


"Cbc  fmfcfeerbochcr  press,  mew  IRocbeHe,  VI.  ». 


173 

J"73 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  REVISED  VOLUME  .        .        .       ix 

V.—  THE  ANTI-SLA  VERY  STRUGGLE. 
THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE   .....        3 

RUFUS  KING 33 

ON    THE    MISSOURI    STRUGGLE — UNITED    STATES    SENATE, 
FEBRUARY  n  AND  14,  1820. 

WILLIAM  PINKNEY 63 

ON    THE    MISSOURI    STRUGGLE — UNITED    STATES    SENATE, 
FEBRUARY  15,  1820. 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS 102 

ON   THE   MURDER   OF    LOVEJOY— FANEUIL   HALL,   BOSTON, 
DECEMBER  8,  1837. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS "5 

ON    THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  WAR   POWER   OVER   SLAVERY- 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  MAY  25,  1836. 

JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 123 

ON  THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION— UNITED  STATES  SENATE,  MARCH 
4,  1850. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER l61 

ON  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND   THE   UNION— UNITED    STATES 
SENATE,  MARCH  7,  1850. 

HENRY  CLAY 2O2 

ON    THK    COMPROMISE    OF    1850— UNITED    STATES    SENATE, 

JULY  22,  1850. 
VOL.  ii.  iii 


CONTENTS. 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS 219 

ON  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT—BEFORE 
THE  MASSACHUSETTS,  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY,  BOSTON, 
JANUARY  27,  1853. 

CHARLES  SUMNER 268 

ON  THB  REPEAL  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW — UNITED 
STATES  SENATE,  AUGUST  26,  1852. 

APPENDIX,  NOTES 343 


LIST  OF  PORTRAITS. 


VOL.  I. 

PAGE 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON         .        Frontispiece 

From  a  painting  by  COL.  J.  TRUMBULL. 

PATRICK  HENRY     ...  .18 

From  a  painting  by  JAMES  B.  LONGACRE. 

SAMUEL  ADAMS      .  24 

From  a  steel  engraving. 

JAMES  MADISON     .  -54 

From  a  painting  by  GILBERT  STUART. 

FISHER  AMES II2 

From  a  painting  by  GILBERT  STUART. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON       .        .  •     !56 

From  a  painting  by  GILBERT  STUART. 

JOHN  RANDOLPH    ...  .164 


VI 


LIST  OF  PORTRAITS. 


VOL.  II. 

RUFUS  KING  . 

From  a  steel  engraving. 

JOHN  Q.  ADAMS 

From  a  painting  by  MARCHANT. 

JOHN  C.  CALHOUN  . 

From  a  daguerreotype  by  BRADY. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER  . 

From  a  painting  by  R.  M.  STAIGG. 

HENRY  CLAY  . 

From  a  crayon  portrait. 

VOL.   III. 


Frontispiece 

.     116 

124 

.     162 

.      202 
Frontispiece 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD     . 

From  a  photograph. 

SALMON  P.  CHASE 4 

From  a  daguerreotype,  engraved  by  F.  E.  JONES. 

EDWARD  EVERETT 32 

From  a  painting  by  R.  M.  STAIGG. 

STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLASS  ....      50 

From  a  steel  engraving. 

JEFFERSON  DAVIS  .    320 

From  a  photograph. 


LIST  OF  PORTRAITS.  VI 1 

VOL.  IV. 

PAGE 

GEORGE  W.  CURTIS         .        .        Frontispiece 

From  a  painting  by  SAMUEL  LAWRENCE. 

JOHN  C.  BRECKENRIDGE        .  .      52 

P>om  a  photograph. 

HENRY  W.  BEECHER      .  .      94 

Wood-engraving  from  photograph. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN        .  124 

Wood-engraving  from  photograph. 

JAMES  G.  ELAINE    .  312 

Wood-engraving  from  photograph. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  REVISED 
VOLUME. 


THE  second  volume  of  the  American  Elo- 
quence is  devoted  exclusively  to  the  Slavery 
controversy.  The  new  material  of  the  revised 
edition  includes  Rufus  King  and  William 
Pinkney  on  the  Missouri  Question ;  John 
Quincy  Adams  on  the  War  Power  of  the 
Constitution  over  Slavery ;  Sumner  on  the 
Repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  The  ad- 
dition of  the  new  material  makes  necessary 
the  reservation  of  the  orations  on  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill,  and  on  the  related  subjects,  for 
the  third  volume. 

In  the  anti-slavery  struggle  the  Missouri 
question  occupied  a  prominent  place.  In  the 
voluminous  Congressional  material  which  the 
long  debates  called  forth,  the  speeches  of  King 


X  IN  TROD  UC  riON. 

and  Pinkney  are  the  best  representatives  of  the 
two  sides  to  the  controversy,  and  they  are 
of  historical  interest  and  importance.  John 
Quincy  Adams'  leadership  in  the  dramatic 
struggle  over  the  right  of  petition  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  his  opinion  on 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment over  the  institution  of  slavery  within 
the  States,  will  always  excite  the  attention  of 
the  historical  student. 

In  the  decade  before  the  war  no  subject  was 
a  greater  cause  of  irritation  and  antagonism 
between  the  States  than  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law.  Sumner's  speech  on  this  subject  is  the 
most  valuable  of  his  speeches  from  the  histori- 
cal point  of  view  ;  and  it  is  not  only  a  worthy 
American  oration,  but  it  is  a  valuable  contri- 
bution to  the  history  of  the  slavery  struggle 
itself.  It  has  been  thought  desirable  to  in- 
clude in  a  volume  of  this  character  orations 
of  permanent  value  on  these  themes  of  historic 
interest.  A  study  of  the  speeches  of  a  radical 
innovator  like  Phillips  with  those  of  compro- 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TJON.  xi 

mising  conservatives  like  Webster  and  Clay, 
will  lead  the  student  into  a  comparison,  or  con- 
trast, of  these  diverse  characters.  The  volume 
retains  the  two  orations  of  Phillips,  the  two 
greatest  of  all  his  contributions  to  the  anti- 
slavery  struggle.  It  is  believed  that  the  list  of 
orations,  on  the  whole,  presents  to  the  reader 
a  series  of  subjects  of  first  importance  in  the 
great  slavery  controversy. 

The  valuable  introduction  of  Professor  John- 
ston, on  "  The  Anti-Slavery  Struggle,"  is  re- 
printed entire.  Full  historical  notes  are  added 
on  the  leading  subjects  of  the  Orations,  with 
brief  sketches  of  their  authors.  These,  with 
the  textual  notes  and  references  will,  it  is 
hoped,  make  the  volume  a  useful  text  and 
guide  to  those  who  may  wish  to  study  this 
important  portion  of  our  national  history. 

J.  A.  W. 


V. 
THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 


V. 

THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

NEGRO  slavery  was  introduced  into  all  the 
English  colonies  of  North  America  as  a  custom, 
and  not  under  any  warrant  of  law.  The  en- 
slavement of  the  negro  race  was  simply  a  mat- 
ter against  which  no  white  person  chose  to 
enter  a  protest,  or  make  resistance,  while  the 
negroes  themselves  were  powerless  to  resist  or 
even  protest.  In  due  course  of  time  laws  were 
passed  by  the  Colonial  Assemblies  to  protect 
property  in  negroes,  while  the  home  govern- 
ment, to  the  very  last,  actively  protected  and 
encouraged  the  slave  trade  to  the  colonies. 
Negro  slavery  in  all  the  colonies  had  thus 
passed  from  custom  to  law  before  the  American 
Revolution  broke  out ;  and  the  course  of  the 
Revolution  itself  had  little  or  no  effect  on  the 
system. 


4  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

From  the  beginning,  it  was  evident  that  the 
course  of  slavery  in  the  two  sections,  North  and 
South,  was  to  be  altogether  divergent.  In  the 
colder  North,  the  dominant  race  found  it  easier 
to  work  than  to  compel  negroes  to  work :  in 
the  warmer  South,  the  case  was  exactly  re- 
versed. At  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  Massa- 
chusetts led  the  way  in  an  abolition  of  slavery, 
which  was  followed  gradually  by  the  other 
States  north  of  Virginia;  and  in  1787  the  ordi- 
nance of  Congress  organizing  the  Northwest 
Territory  made  all  the  future  States  north  of 
the  Ohio  free  States.  "  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line  "  and  the  Ohio  River  thus  seemed,  in  1790, 
to  be  the  natural  boundary  between  the  free 
and  the  slave  States. 

Up  to  this  point  the  white  race  in  the  two 
sections  had  dealt  with  slavery  by  methods 
which  were  simply  divergent,  not  antagonistic. 
It  was  true  that  the  percentage  of  slaves  in  the 
total  population  had  been  very  rapidly  decreas- 
ing in  the  North  and  not  in  the  South,  and  that 
the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  was  proceeding 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  5 

in  the  North  alone,  and  that  with  increasing 
rapidity.  But  there  was  no  positive  evidence 
that  the  South  was  bulwarked  in  favor  of  slav- 
ery ;  there  was  no  certainty  but  that  the  South 
would  in  its  turn  and  in  due  time  come  to  the 
point  which  the  North  had  already  reached, 
and  begin  its  own  abolition  of  slavery.  The 
language  of  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison, 
Henry,  and  Mason,  in  regard  to  the  evils  or  the 
wickedness  of  the  system  of  slavery,  was  too 
strong  to  be  heard  with  patience  in  the  South 
of  after  years ;  and  in  this  section  it  seems  to 
have  been  true,  that  those  who  thought  at  all 
upon  the  subject  hoped  sincerely  for  the  grad- 
ual abolition  of  slavery  in  the  South.  The 
hope,  indeed,  was  rather  a  sentiment  than 
a  purpose,  but  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
good  reason,  before  1793,  why  the  sentiment 
should  not  finally  develop  into  a  purpose. 

All  this  was  permanently  changed,  and  the 
slavery  policy  of  the  South  was  made  antagonis- 
tic to,  and  not  merely  divergent  from,  that  of 
the  North,  by  the  invention  of  Whitney's  saw 


6  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

gin  for  cleansing  cotton  in  1793.  It  had  been 
known,  before  that  year,  that  cotton  could  be 
cultivated  in  the  South,  but  its  cultivation  was 
made  unprofitable,  and  checked  by  the  labor 
required  to  separate  the  seeds  from  the  cotton. 
Whitney's  invention  increased  the  efficiency  of 
this  labor  hundreds  of  times,  and  it  became 
evident  at  once  that  the  South  enjoyed  a  prac- 
tical monopoly  of  the  production  of  cotton. 
The  effect  on  the  slavery  policy  of  the  South 
was  immediate  and  unhappy.  Since  1865,  it 
has  been  found  that  the  cotton  monopoly  of 
the  South  is  even  more  complete  under  a  free 
than  under  a  slave  labor  system,  but  mere 
theory  could  never  have  convinced  the  South- 
ern people  that  such  would  be  the  case.  Their 
whole  prosperity  hinged  on  one  product ;  they 
began  its  cultivation  under  slave  labor ;  and  the 
belief  that  labor  and  prosperity  were  equally 
dependent  on  the  enslavement  of  the  laboring 
race  very  soon  made  the  dominant  race  active 
defenders  of  slavery.  From  that  time  the  sys- 
tem in  the  South  was  one  of  slowly  but  steadily 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  J 

increasing  rigor,  until,  just  before  1860,  its  last 
development  took  the  form  of  legal  enactments 
for  the  re-enslavement  of  free  negroes,  in  de- 
fault of  their  leaving  the  State  in  which  they 
resided.  Parallel  with  this  increase  of  rigor, 
there  was  a  steady  change  in  the  character  of 
the  system.  It  tended  very  steadily  to  lose  its 
original  patriarchal  character,  and  take  the 
aspect  of  a  purely  commercial  speculation. 
After  1850,  the  commercial  aspect  began  to  be 
the  rule  in  the  black  belt  of  the  Gulf  States. 
The  plantation  knew  only  the'  overseer;  so 
many  slaves  died  to  so  many  bales  of  cotton ; 
and  the  slave  population  began  to  lose  all 
human  connection  with  the  dominant  race. 

The  acquisition  of  Louisiana  in  1803  more 
than  doubled  the  area  of  the  United  States, 
and  far  more  than  doubled  the  area  of  the  slave 
system.  Slavery  had  been  introduced  into 
Louisiana,  as  usual,  by  custom,  and  had  then 
been  sanctioned  by  Spanish  and  French  law. 
It  is  true  that  Congress  did  not  forbid  slavery 
in  the  new  territory  of  Louisiana  ;  but  Congress 


8  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

did  even  worse  than  this ;  under  the  guise  of 
forbidding  the  importation  of  slaves  into  Louis- 
iana, by  the  act  of  March  26,  1804,  organizing 
the  territory,  the  phrase  "  except  by  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  removing  into  said  terri- 
tory for  actual  settlement,  and  being  at  the 
time  of  such  removal  bona  fide  owner  of  such 
slave  or  slaves, "  impliedly  legitimated  the 
domestic  slave  trade  to  Louisiana,  and  legalized 
slavery  wherever  population  should  extend 
between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains. The  Congress  of  1803-05,  which  passed 
the  act,  should  rightfully  bear  the  responsibility 
for  all  the  subsequent  growth  of  slavery,  and 
for  all  the  difficulties  in  which  it  involved  the 
South  and  the  country. 

There  were  but  two  centres  of  population  in 
Louisiana,  New  Orleans  and  St.  Louis.  When 
the  southern  district,  around  New  Orleans,  ap- 
plied for  admission  as  the  slave  State  of  Louis- 
iana, there  seems  to  have  been  no  surprise  or 
opposition  on  this  score ;  the  Federalist  oppo- 
sition to  the  admission  is  exactly  represented 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  9 

by  Quincy's  speech  in  the  first  volume.  When 
the  northern  district,  around  St.  Louis,  applied 
for  admission  as  the  slave  State  of  Missouri, 
the  inevitable  consequences  of  the  act  of  1804 
became  evident  for  the  first  time,  and  all  the 
Northern  States  united  to  resist  the  admission. 
The  North  controlled  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  the  South  the  Senate ;  and,  after  a 
severe  parliamentary  struggle,  the  two  bodies 
united  in  the  compromise  of  1820.  By  its 
terms  Missouri  was  admitted  as  a  slave  State, 
and  slavery  was  forever  forbidden  in  the  rest  of 
Louisiana  Territory,  north  of  latitude  36°  30' 
(the  line  of  the  southerly  boundary  of  Missouri). 
The  instinct  of  this  first  struggle  against  slavery 
extension  seems  to  have  been  much  the  same 
as  that  of  1846-60 — the  realization  that  a  per- 
mission to  introduce  slavery  by  custom  into  the 
Territories  meant  the  formation  of  slave  States 
exclusively,  the  restriction  of  the  free  States  to 
the  district  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  At- 
lantic, and  the  final  conversion  of  the  mass  of 
the  United  States  to  a  policy  of  enslavement 


10  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

of  labor.  But,  on  the  surface,  it  was  so  entirely 
a  struggle  for  the  balance  of  power  between 
the  two  sections,  that  it  has  not  seemed  worth 
while  to  introduce  any  of  the  few  reported 
speeches  of  the  time.  The  topic  is  more  fully 
and  fairly  discussed  in  the  subsequent  debates 
on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act. 

In  1830  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  a  Boston 
printer,  opened  the  real  anti-slavery  struggle. 
Up  to  this  time  the  anti-slavery  sentiment, 
North  and  South,  had  been  content  with  the 
notion  of  "  gradual  abolition,"  with  the  hope 
that  the  South  would,  in  some  yet  unsuspected 
manner,  be  brought  to  the  Northern  policy. 
This  had  been  supplemented,  to  some  extent, 
by  the  colonization  society  for  colonizing  ne- 
groes on  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  which  had 
two  aspects:  at  the  South  it  was  the  means 
of  ridding  the  country  of  the  free  negro  popu- 
lation ;  at  the  North  it  was  a  means  of  mitigat- 
ing, perhaps  of  gradually  abolishing,  slavery. 
Garrison,  through  his  newspaper,  the  Liberator, 
called  for  "  immediate  abolition  "  of  slavery. 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  II 

for  the  conversion  of  anti-slavery  sentiment 
into  anti-slavery  purpose.  This  was  followed 
by  the  organization  of  his  adherents  into  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society  in  1833,  and  the 
active  dissemination  of  the  immediate  abolition 
principle  by  tracts,  newspapers,  and  lecturers. 
The  anti-slavery  struggle  thus  begun,  never 
ceased  until,  in  1865,  the  Liberator  ceased  to  be 
published,  with  the  final  abolition  of  slavery. 
In  its  inception  and  in  all  its  development  the 
movement  was  a  distinct  product  of  the  dem- 
ocratic spirit.  It  would  not  have  been  possible 
in  1790,  or  in  1810,  or  in  1820.  The  man  came 
with  the  hour ;  and  every  new  mile  of  railroad  or 
telegraph,  every  new  district  open  to  population, 
every  new  influence  toward  the  growth  of  de- 
mocracy, broadened  the  power  as  well  as  the  field 
of  the  abolition  movement.  It  was  but  the 
deepening,  the  application  to  an  enslaved  race 
of  laborers,  of  the  work  which  Jeffersonian  de- 
mocracy had  done,  to  remove  the  infinitely  less 
grievous  restraints  upon  the  white  laborer  thirty 
year  before.  It  could  never  have  been  begun 


12  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

until  individualism  at  the  North  had  advanced  so 
far  that  there  was  a  reserve  force  of  mind"  ready 
to  reject  all  the  influences  of  heredity  and  cus- 
tom upon  thought.  Outside  of  religion  there 
was  no  force  so  strong  at  the  North  as  the  rev- 
erence for  the  Constitution ;  it  was  significant 
of  the  growth  of  individualism,  as  well  as  of 
the  anti-slavery  sentiment,  that  Garrison  could 
safely  begin  his  work  with  the  declaration  that 
the  Constitution  itself  was  "  a  league  with  death 
and  a  covenant  with  hell." 

The  Garrisonian  programme  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  considered  highly  objectionable 
by  the  South,  even  under  the  comparatively 
colorless  slavery  policy  of  1790.  Under  the 
conditions  to  which  cotton  culture  had  ad- 
vanced in  1830,  it  seemed  to  the  South  nothing 
less  than  a  proposal  to  destroy,  root  and  branch, 
the  whole  industry  of  that  section,  and  it  was 
received  vvith  corresponding  indignation.  Gar- 
risonian abolitionists  were  taken  and  regarded 
as  public  enemies,  and  rewards  were  even  of- 
fered for  their  capture.  The  germ  of  abolition- 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  13 

ism  in  the  Border  States  found  a  new  and  ag- 
gressive public  sentiment  arrayed  against  it ; 
and  an  attempt  to  introduce  gradual  abolition 
in  Virginia  in  1832-33  was  hopelessly  defeated. 
The  new  question  was  even  carried  into  Con- 
gress. A  bill  to  prohibit  the  transportation  of 
abolition  documents  by  the  Post-Office  de- 
partment was  introduced,  taken  far  enough  to 
put  leading  men  of  both  parties  on  the  record, 
and  then  dropped.  Petitions  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  were  met 
by  rules  requiring  the  reference  of  such  peti- 
tions without  reading  or  action  ;  but  this  only 
increased  the  number  of  petitions,  by  providing 
a  new  grievance  to  be  petitioned  against,  and 
in  1842  the  "  gag  rule  "  was  rescinded.  Thence- 
forth the  pro-slavery  members  of  Congress  could 
do  nothing,  and  could  only  become  more  ex- 
asperated under  a  system  of  passive  resistance. 
Even  at  the  North,  indifferent  or  politically 
hostile  as  it  had  hitherto  shown  itself  to  the  ex- 
pansion of  slavery,  the  new  doctrines  were  re- 
ceived with  an  outburst  of  anger  which  seems 


14  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

to  have  been  primarily  a  revulsion  against  their 
unheard  of  individualism.  If  nothing,  which 
had  been  the  object  of  unquestioning  popular 
reverence,  from  the  Constitution  down  or  up  to 
the  church  organizations,  was  to  be  sacred 
against  the  criticism  of  the  Garrisonians,  it  was 
certain  that  the  innovators  must  submit  for  a 
time  to  a  general  proscription.  Thus  the  Gar- 
risonians were  ostracised  socially,  and  became 
the  Ishmaelites  of  politics.  Their  meetings 
were  broken  up  by  mobs,  their  halls  were  des- 
troyed, their  schools  were  attacked  by  all  the 
machinery  of  society  and  legislation,  their  print- 
ing presses  were  silenced  by  force  or  fraud,  and 
their  lecturers  came  to  feel  that  they  had  not 
done  their  work  with  efficiency  if  a  meeting 
passed  without  the  throwing  of  stones  or  eggs 
at  the  building  or  the  orators.  It  was,  of  course, 
inevitable  that  such  a  process  should  bring 
strong  minds  to  the  aid  of  the  Garrisonians,  at 
first  from  sympathy  with  persecuted  individual- 
ism, and  finally  from  sympathy  with  the  cause 
itself  ;  and  in  this  way  Garrisonianism  was  in  a 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  15 

great  measure  relieved  from  open  mob  violence 
about  1840,  though  it  never  escaped  it  alto- 
gether until  abolition  meetings  ceased  to  be  nec- 
essary. One  of  the  first  and  greatest  reinforce- 
ments was  the  appearance  of  Wendell  Phillips, 
whose  speech  at  Faneuil  Hall  in  1837  was  one 
of  the  first  tokens  of  a  serious  break  in  the 
hitherto  almost  unanimous  public  opinion 
against  Garrisonianism.  Lovejoy,  a  Western 
anti-slavery  preacher  and  editor,  who  had  been 
driven  from  one  place  to  another  in  Missouri 
and  Illinois,  had  finally  settled  at  Alton,  and 
was  there  shot  to  death  while  defending  his 
printing  press  against  a  mob.  At  a  public 
meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  the  Attorney-General 
of  Massachusetts,  James  T.  Austin,  expressing 
what  was  doubtless  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  time  as  to  such  individual  insurrection 
against  pronounced  public  opinion,  compared 
the  Alton  mob  to  the  Boston  "  tea-party,"  and 
declared  that  Lovejoy,  "  presumptuous  and  im- 
prudent," had  "  died  as  the  fool  dieth."  Phil- 
lips, an  almost  unknown  man,  took  the  stand, 


1 6  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

and  answered  in  the  speech  which  opens  this 
volume.  A  more  powerful  reinforcement  could 
hardly  have  been  looked  for ;  the  cause  which 
could  find  such  a  defender  was  henceforth  to  be 
feared  rather  than  despised.  To  the  day  of  his 
death  he  was,  fully  as  much  as  Garrison,  the  in- 
carnation of  the  anti-slavery  spirit.  For  this 
reason  his  address  on  the  Philosophy  of  the 
Abolition  Movement,  in  1853,  has  been  assigned 
a  place  as  representing  fully  the  abolition  side 
of  the  question,  just  before  it  was  overshadowed 
by  the  rise  of  the  Republican  party,  which  op- 
posed only  the  extension  of  slavery  to  the 
territories. 

The  history  of  the  sudden  development  of  the 
anti-slavery  struggle  in  1845  an<^  tne  following 
years,  is  largely  given  in  the  speeches  which  have 
been  selected  to  illustrate  it.  The  admission  of 
Texas  to  the  Union  in  1845,  and  the  war  with 
Mexico  which  followed  it,  resulted  in  the  ac- 
quisition of  a  vast  amount  of  new  territory  by 
the  United  States.  From  the  first  suggestion 
of  such  an  acquisition,  the  Wilmot  proviso  (so- 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  \*J 

called  from  David  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
introduced  it  in  Congress),  that  slavery  should 
be  prohibited  in  the  new  territory,  was  persist- 
ently offered  as  an  amendment  to  every  bill 
appropriating  money  for  the  purchase  of  terri- 
tory from  Mexico.  It  was  passed  by  the  House 
of  Representatives,  but  was  balked  in  the 
Senate ;  and  the  purchase  was  finally  made 
without  any  proviso.  When  the  territory  came 
to  be  organized,  the  old  question  came  up 
again :  the  Wilmot  proviso  was  offered  as  an 
amendment.  As  the  territory  was  now  in  the 
possession  of  the  United  States,  and  as  it  had 
been  acquired  in  a  war  whose  support  had  been 
much  more  cordial  at  the  South  than  at  the 
North,  the  attempt  to  add  the  Wilmot  proviso 
to  the  territorial  organization  raised  the  South- 
ern opposition  to  an  intensity  which  it  had  not 
known  before.  Fuel  was  added  to  the  flame 
by  the  application  of  California,  whose  popula- 
tion had  been  enormously  increased  by  the  dis- 
covery of  gold  within  her  limits,  for  admission 
as  a  free  State.  If  New  Mexico  should  do  the 


1 8  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

same,  as  was  probable,  the  Wilmot  proviso 
would  be  practically  in  force  throughout  the  best 
portion  of  the  Mexican  acquisition.  The  two 
sections  were  now  so  strong  and  so  determined 
that  compromise  of  any  kind  was  far  more  diffi- 
cult than  in  1820 ;  and  it  was  not  easy  to  recon- 
cile or  compromise  the  southern  demand  that 
slavery  should  be  permitted,  and  the  northern 
demand  that  slavery  should  be  forbidden,  to 
enter  the  new  territories. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Presidential  election  of 
1848  had  come  and  gone.  It  had  been  marked 
by  the  appearance  of  a  new  party,  the  Free 
Soilers,  an  event  which  was  at  first  extremely 
embarrassing  to  the  managers  of  both  the 
Democratic  and  Whig  parties.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  northern  and  southern  sections  of  the 
Whig  party  had  always  been  very  loosely 
joined  together,  and  the  slender  tie  was  en- 
dangered by  the  least  admission  of  the  slavery 
issue.  On  the  other  hand,  while  the  Democra- 
tic national  organization  had  always  been  more 
perfect,  its  northern  section  had  always  been 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  ig 

much  more  inclined  to  active  anti-slavery  work 
than  the  northern  Whigs.  Its  organ,  the  Dem- 
ocratic Review,  habitually  spoke  of  the  slaves  as 
"  our  black  brethren  " ;  and  a  long  catalogue 
could  be  made  of  leaders  like  Chase,  Hale,  Wil- 
mot,  Bryant,  and  Leggett,  whose  democracy 
was  broad  enough  to  include  the  negro.  To 
both  parties,  therefore,  the  situation  was  ex- 
tremely hazardous.  The  Whigs  had  less  to 
fear,  but  were  able  to  resist  less  pressure. 
The  Democrats  were  more  united,  but  were 
called  upon  to  meet  a  greater  danger.  In  the 
end,  the  Whigs  did  nothing ;  their  two  sections 
drew  further  apart ;  and  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion of  1852  only  made  it  evident  that  the  na- 
tional Whig  party  was  no  longer  in  existence. 
The  Democratic  managers  evolved,  as  a  solu- 
tion of  their  problem,  the  new  doctrine  of 
"  popular  sovereignty/'  which  Calhoun  re- 
baptized  "  squatter  sovereignty."  They  as- 
serted as  the  true  Democratic  doctrine,  that 
the  question  of  slavery  or  freedom  was  to  be 
left  for  decision  of  the  people  of  the  territory 


20  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

itself.  To  the  mass  of  northern  Democrats, 
this  doctrine  was  taking  enough  to  cover  over 
the  essential  nature  of  the  struggle  ;  the  more 
democratic  leaders  of  the  northern  Democracy 
were  driven  off  into  the  Free-Soil  party ;  and 
Douglas,  the  champion  of  "popular  sov- 
ereignty," became  the  leading  Democrat  of 
the  North. 

Clay  had  re-entered  the  Senate  in  1849,  f°r 
the  purpose  of  compromising  the  sectional  diffi- 
culties as  he  had  compromised  those  of  1820 
and  of  1833.  His  speech,  as  given,  will  show 
something  of  his  motives  ;  his  success  resulted 
in  the  "compromise  of  1850."  By  its  terms, 
California  was  admitted  as  a  free  State ;  the 
slave  trade,  but  not  slavery,  was  prohibited  in 
the  District  of  Columbia ;  a  more  stringent 
fugitive  slave  law  was  enacted  ;  Texas  was  paid 
$10,000,000  for  certain  claims  to  the  Territory 
of  New  Mexico  ;  and  the  Territories  of  Utah 
and  New  Mexico,  covering  the  Mexican  ac- 
quisition outside  of  California,  were  organized 
without  mentioning  slavery.  The  last-named 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  21 

feature  was  carefully  designed  to  please  all  im- 
portant factions.  It  could  be  represented  to 
the  Webster  Whigs  that  slavery  was  excluded 
from  the  Territories  named  by  the  operation  of 
natural  laws ;  to  the  Clay  Whigs  that  slavery 
had  already  been  excluded  by  Mexican  law 
which  survived  the  cession;  to  the  northern 
Democrats,  that  the  compromise  was  a  formal 
endorsement  of  the  great  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty ;  and  to  the  southern  Democrats 
that  it  was  a  repudiation  of  the  Wilmot  proviso. 
In  the  end,  the  essence  of  the  success  went  to 
the  last-named  party,  for  the  legislatures  of 
the  two  territories  established  slavery,  and  no 
bill  to  veto  their  action  could  pass  both  Houses 
of  Congress  until  after  1861. 

The  Supreme  Court  had  already  decided  that 
Congress  had  exclusive  power  to  enforce  the 
fugitive  slave  clause  of  the  Constitution,  though 
the  fugitive  slave  law  of  1 793  had  given  a  con- 
current authority  of  execution  to  State  officers. 
The  law  of  1850,  carrying  the  Supreme  Court's 
decision  further,  gave  the  execution  of  the  law 


22  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

to  United  States  officers,  and  refused  the 
accused  a  hearing.  Its  execution  at  the  North 
was  therefore  the  occasion  of  a  profound  excite- 
ment and  horror.  Cases  of  inhuman  cruelty, 
and  of  false  accusation  to  which  no  defence  was 
permitted,  were  multiplied  until  a  practical 
nullification  of  the  law,  in  the  form  of  "  personal 
liberty  laws,"  securing  a  hearing  for  the  accused 
before  State  magistrates,  was  forced  by  public 
opinion  upon  the  legislature  of  the  exposed 
northern  States.  Before  the  excitement  had 
come  to  a  head,  the  Whig  convention  of  1852 
met  and  endorsed  the  compromise  of  1850  "  in 
all  its  parts."  Overwhelmed  in  the  election 
which  followed,  the  Whig  party  was  popularly 
said  to  have  "  died  of  an  attempt  to  swallow  the 
fugitive-slave  law  "  ;  it  would  have  been  more 
correct  to  have  said  that  the  southern  section 
of  the  party  had  deserted  in  a  body  and  gone 
over  to  the  Democratic  party.  National  poli- 
tics were  thus  left  in  an  entirely  anomalous  con- 
dition. The  Democratic  party  was  omnipotent 
at  the  South,  though  it  was  afterward  opposed 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  23 

feebly  by  the  American  (or  "  Know  Nothing  ") 
organization,  and  was  generally  successful  at 
the  North,  though  it  was  still  met  by  the 
Northern  Whigs  with  vigorous  opposition. 
Such  a  state  of  affairs  was  not  calculated  to 
satisfy  thinking  men ;  and  this  period  seems 
to  have  been  one  in  which  very  few  thinking 
men  of  any  party  were  at  all  satisfied  with 
their  party  positions. 

This  was  the  hazardous  situation  into  which 
the  Democratic  managers  chose  to  thrust  one 
of  the  most  momentous  pieces  of  legislation 
in  our  political  history — the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill.  The  responsibility  for  it  is  clearly  on  the 
shoulders  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  The  over- 
land travel  to  the  Pacific  coast  had  made  it 
necessary  to  remove  the  Indian  title  to  Kansas 
and  Nebraska,  and  to  organize  them  as  Ter- 
ritories, in  order  to  afford  protection  to  emi- 
grants ;  and  Douglas,  chairman  of  the  Senate 
committee  on  Territories,  introduced  a  bill  for 
such  organization  in  January,  1854.  Both 
these  prospective  Territories  had  been  made 


24  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

free  soil  forever  by  the  compromise  of  1820; 
the  question  of  slavery  had  been  settled,  so 
far  as  they  were  concerned ;  but  Douglas  con- 
sented, after  a  show  of  opposition,  to  reopen 
Pandora's  box.  His  original  bill  did  not  abro- 
gate the  Missouri  compromise,  and  there  seems 
to  have  been  no  general  Southern  demand  that 
it  should  do  so.  But  Douglas  had  become 
intoxicated  by  the  unexpected  success  of  his 
"  popular  sovereignty "  make-shift  in  regard 
to  the  Territories  of  1850;  and  a  notice  of 
an  amendment  to  be  offered  by  a  southern 
senator,  abrogating  the  Missouri  compromise, 
was  threat  or  excuse  sufficient  to  bring  him 
to  withdraw  the  bill.  A  week  later,  it  was  re- 
introduced  with  the  addition  of  "  popular 
sovereignty  ":  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery 
in  these  Territories,  and  in  the  States  to  be 
formed  from  them,  were  to  be  left  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  people,  through  their  representa- 
tives; and  the  Missouri  compromise  of  1820 
was  declared  "inoperative  and  void,"  as  in- 
consistent with  the  principles  of  the  territorial 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  2$ 

legislation  of  1850.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  "non-intervention  "  of  1850  had  been 
confessedly  based  on  no  constitutional  prin- 
ciple whatever,  but  was  purely  a  matter  of  ex- 
pediency ;  and  that  "  non-intervention "  in 
Utah  and  New  Mexico  was  no  more  incon- 
sistent with  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  than  "  non-intervention  " 
in  the  Southwest  Territory,  sixty  years  before, 
had  been  inconsistent  with  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  Northwest  Territory.  Whether 
Douglas  is  to  be  considered  as  too  scrupulous, 
or  too  timid,  or  too  willing  to  be  terrified,  it  is 
certain  that  his  action  was  unnecessary. 

After  a  struggle  of  some  months,  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  became  law.  The  Missouri  com- 
promise was  abrogated,  and  the  question  of  the 
extension  of  slavery  to  the  territories  was  adrift 
again,  never  to  be  got  rid  of  except  through  the 
abolition  of  slavery  itself  by  war.  The  demands 
of  the  South  had  now  come  fully  abreast  with 
the  proposal  of  Douglas :  that  slavery  should 
have  permission  to  enter  all  the  Territories,  if  it 


26  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

could.  The  opponents  of  the  extension  of 
slavery,  at  first  under  the  name  of  "  Anti- 
Nebraska  men,"  then  of  the  Republican  party, 
carried  the  elections  for  representatives  in  Con- 
gress in  i854~'55,  and  narrowly  missed  carrying 
the  Presidential  election  of  1856.  The  percent- 
age of  Democratic  losses  in  the  congressional 
districts  of  the  North  was  sufficient  to  leave 
Douglas  with  hardly  any  supporters  in  Congress 
from  his  own  section.  The  Democratic  party 
was  converted  at  once  into  a  solid  South,  with 
a  northern  attachment  of  popular  votes  which 
was  not  sufficient  to  control  very  many  Con- 
gressmen or  electoral  votes. 

Immigration  into  Kansas  was  organized  at 
once  by  leading  men  of  the  two  sections,  with 
the  common  design  of  securing  a  majority  of 
the  voters  of  the  territory  and  applying  "  popu- 
lar sovereignty "  for  or  against  slavery.  The 
first  sudden  inroad  of  Missouri  intruders  was 
successful  in  securing  a  pro-slavery  legislature 
and  laws ;  but  within  two  years  the  stream  of 
free-State  immigration  had  become  so  powerful, 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  2*J 

in  spite  of  murder,  outrage,  and  open  civil  war, 
that  it  was  very  evident  that  Kansas  was  to  be 
a  free-State.  Its  expiring  territorial  legislature 
endeavored  to  outwit  its  constituents  by  apply- 
ing for  admission  as  a  slave  State,  under  the 
Lecompton  constitution ;  but  the  Douglas 
Democrats  could  not  support  the  attempt,  and 
it  was  defeated.  Kansas,  however,  remained  a 
territory  until  1861. 

The  cruelties  of  this  Kansas  episode  could 
not  but  be  reflected  in  the  feelings  of  the  two 
sections  and  in  Congress.  In  the  former  it 
showed  too  plainly  that  the  divergence  of  the 
two  sections,  indicated  in  Calhoun's  speech  of 
1850,  had  widened  to  an  absolute  separation  in 
thought,  feeling,  and  purpose.  In  the  latter 
the  debates  assumed  a  virulence  which  is  illus- 
trated by  the  speeches  on  the  Sumner  assault. 
The  current  of  events  had  at  least  carried  the 
sections  far  enough  apart  to  give  striking  dis- 
tance ;  and  the  excuse  for  action  was  supplied 
by  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  1857. 

Dred  Scott,  a  Missouri  slave,  claiming  to  be 


28  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

a  free  man  under  the  Missouri  compromise  of 
1820,  had  sued  his  master,  and  the  case  had 
reached  the  Supreme  Court.  A  majority  of  the 
justices  agreed  in  dismissing  the  suit ;  but,  as 
nearly  every  justice  filed  an  opinion,  and  as 
nearly  every  opinion  disagreed  with  the  other 
opinions  on  one  or  more  points,  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  what  else  is  covered  by  the  decision. 
Nevertheless,  the  opinion  of  the  Chief  Justice, 
Roger  B.  Taney,  attracted  general  attention  by 
the  strength  of  its  argument  and  the  character 
of  its  views.  It  asserted,  in  brief,  that  no  slave 
could  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
even  by  enfranchisement  or  State  law  ;  that  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  by  the  Missouri  compro- 
mise of  1820  was  unconstitutional  and  void  ; 
that  the  Constitution  recognized  property  in 
slaves,  and  was  framed  for  the  protection  of 
property  ;  that  Congress  had  no  rights  or  duties 
in  the  territories  but  such  as  were  granted  or 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, Congress  was  bound  not  merely  not  to  for- 
bid slavery,  but  to  actively  protect  slavery  in 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  29 

the  Territories.  This  was  just  the  ground 
which  had  always  been  held  by  Calhoun,  though 
the  South  had  not  supported  him  in  it.  Now 
the  South,  rejecting  Douglas  and  his  "  popular 
sovereignty,"  was  united  in  its  devotion  to  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  called  upon 
the  North  to  yield  unhesitating  obedience  to 
that  body  which  Webster  in  1830  had  styled 
the  ultimate  arbiter  of  constitutional  questions. 
This,  it  was  evident,  could  never  be.  No  re- 
spectable authority  at  the  North  pretended  to 
uphold  the  keystone  of  Taney's  argument,  that 
slaves  were  regarded  as  property  by  the  Con- 
stitution. On  the  contrary,  it  was  agreed  every- 
where by  those  whose  opinions  were  looked  to 
with  respect,  that  slaves  were  regarded  by  the 
Constitution  as  "persons  held  to  service  or 
labor  "  under  the  laws  of  the  State  alone  ;  and 
that  the  laws  of  the  State  could  not  give  such 
persons  a  fictitious  legal  character  outside  of 
the  State's  jurisdiction.  Even  the  Douglas 
Democrats,  who  expressed  a  willingness  to  yield 
to  the  Supreme  Court's  decision,  did  not  pro- 
fess to  uphold  Taney's  share  in  it. 


30  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

As  the  Presidential  election  of  1860  drew 
near,  the  evidences  of  separation  became  more 
manifest.  The  absorption  of  northern  Demo- 
crats into  the  Republican  party  increased  until 
Douglas,  in  1858,  narrowly  escaped  defeat  in 
his  contest  with  Lincoln  for  a  re-election  to  the 
Senate  from  Illinois.  In  1860  the  Republicans 
nominated  Lincoln  for  the  Presidency  on  a 
platform  demanding  prohibition  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories.  The  southern  delegates  seceded 
from  the  Democratic  convention,  and  nomi 
nated  Breckenridge,  on  a  platform  demanding 
congressional  protection  of  slavery  in  the  Terri- 
tories. The  remainder  of  the  Democratic  con- 
vention nominated  Douglas,  with  a  declaration 
of  its  willingness  to  submit  to  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  on  questions  of  constitu- 
tional law.  The  remnants  of  the  former  Whig 
and  American  parties,  under  the  name  of  the 
Constitutional  Union  party,  nominated  Bell 
without  any  declaration  of  principles.  Lincoln 
received  a  majority  of  the  electoral  votes,  and 
became  President.  His  popular  vote  was  a 
plurality. 


THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE.  31 

Seward's  address  on  the  "  Irrepressible  Con- 
flict," which  closes  this  volume,  is  represents 
tive  of  the  division  between  the  two  sections, 
as  it  stood  just  before  the  actual  shock  of  con- 
flict. Labor  systems  are  delicate  things ;  and 
that  which  the  South  had  adopted,  of  enslaving 
the  laboring  class,  was  one  whose  influence 
could  not  help  being  universal  and  aggressive. 
Every  form  of  energy  and  prosperity  which 
tended  to  advance  a  citizen  into  the  class  of 
representative  rulers  tended  also  to  make  him  a 
slave  owner,  and  to  shackle  his  official  policy 
and  purposes  with  considerations  inseparable 
from  his  heavy  personal  interests.  Men  might 
divide  on  other  questions  at  the  South  ;  but  on 
this  question  of  slavery  the  action  of  the  indi- 
vidual had  to  follow  the  decisions  of  a  majority 
which,  by  the  influence  of  ambitious  aspirants 
for  the  lead,  was  continually  becoming  more 
aggressive.  In  constitutional  countries,  defec- 
tions to  the  minority  are  a  steady  check  upon 
an  aggressive  majority  ;  but  the  southern  ma- 
jority was  a  steam  engine  without  a  safety  valve. 


32  THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  STRUGGLE. 

In  this  sense  Seward  and  Lincoln,  in  1858,  were 
correct ;  the  labor  system  of  the  South  was  not 
only  a  menace  to  the  whole  country,  but  one 
which  could  neither  decrease  nor  stand  still.  It 
was  intolerable  by  the  laws  of  its  being ;  and  it 
could  be  got  rid  of  only  by  allowing  a  peaceable 
secession,  or  by  abolishing  it  through  war.  The 
material  prosperity  which  has  followed  the  adop- 
tion of  the  latter  alternative,  apart  from  the 
moral  aspects  of  the  case,  is  enough  to  show 
that  the  South  has  gained  more  than  all  that 
slavery  lost. 


RUFUS  KING,* 

OF  NEW  YORK.1 
(BORN  1755,  DIED  1827.) 


ON    THE   MISSOURI   BILL2 — UNITED    STATES   SENATE, 
FEBRUARY    1 1    AND    14,    1820. 

THE  Constitution  declares  "  that  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory  and  other  property  of  the  United 
States."  Under  this  power  Congress  have 
passed  laws  for  the  survey  and  sale  of  the  pub- 
lic lands ;  for  the  division  of  the  same  into 
separate  territories ;  and  have  ordained  for 
each  of  them  a  constitution,  a  plan  of  tem- 
porary government,  whereby  the  civil  and 
political  rights  of  the  inhabitants  are  regulated, 
and  the  rights  of  conscience  and  other  natural 
rights  are  protected. 

*  For  notes  on  King,  see  Appendix,  p.  343. 
3  33 


34  RUFUS  KING. 

The  power  to  make  all  needful  regulations, 
includes  the  power  to  determine  what  regula- 
tions are  needful ;  and  if  a  regulation  prohibit- 
ing slavery  within  any  territory  of  the  United 
States  be,  as  it  has  been,  deemed  needful,  Con- 
gress possess  the  power  to  make  the  same,  and, 
moreover,  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  to  carry 
this  power  into  execution. 

The  territory  of  Missouri  is  a  portion  of 
Louisiana,  which  was  purchased  of  France,  and 
belongs  to  the  United  States  in  full  dominion ; 
in  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  Missouri 
is  their  territory  or  property,  and  is  subject  like 
other  territories  of  the  United  States,  to  the 
regulations  and  temporary  government,  which 
has  been,  or  shall  be  prescribed  by  Congress. 
The  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  grants 
this  power  to  Congress,  is  so  comprehensive 
and  unambiguous,  and  its  purpose  so  manifest, 
that  commentary  will  not  render  the  power,  or 
the  object  of  its  establishment,  more  explicit 
or  plain. 

The  Constitution  further  provides  that  "  new 
States  may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  this 
Union."  As  this  power  is  conferred  without 
limitation,  the  time,  terms,  and  circumstances 
of  the  admission  of  new  States,  are  referred  to 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  35 

the  discretion  of  Congress  ;  which  may  admit 
new  States,  but  are  not  obliged  to  do  so — of 
right  no  new  State  can  demand  admission  into 
the  Union,  unless  such  demand  be  founded 
upon  some  previous  engagement  of  the  United 
States. 

When  admitted  by  Congress  into  the  Union, 
whether  by  compact  or  otherwise,  the  new 
State  becomes  entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of 
the  same  rights,  and  bound  to  perform  the  like 
duties  as  the  other  States  ;  and  its  citizens  will 
be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizens  in  the  several  States. 

The  citizens  of  each  State  possess  rights,  and 
owe  duties  that  are  peculiar  to,  and  arise  out  of, 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  several  States. 
These  rights  and  duties  differ  from  each  other 
in  the  different  States,  and  among  these  dif- 
ferences none  is  so  remarkable  or  important  as 
that  which  proceeds  from  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  several  States  respecting  slavery; 
the  same  being  permitted  in  some  States  and 
forbidden  in  others. 

The  question  respecting  slavery  in  the  old 
thirteen  States  had  been  decided  and  settled 
before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  which 
grants  no  power  to  Congress  to  interfere  with, 


36  RUFUS  KING. 

or  to  change  what  had  been  so  previously 
settled.  The  slave  States,  therefore,  are  free 
to  continue  or  to  abolish  slavery.  Since  the 
year  1808  Congress  have  possessed  power  to 
prohibit  and  have  prohibited  the  further  migra- 
tion or  importation  of  slaves  into  any  of  the 
old  thirteen  States,  and  at  all  times,  under  the 
Constitution,  have  had  power  to  prohibit  such 
migration  or  importation  into  any  of  the  new 
States  or  territories  of  the  United  States.  The 
Constitution  contains  no  express  provision 
respecting  slavery  in  a  new  State  that  may  be 
admitted  into  the  Union ;  every  regulation 
upon  this  subject  belongs  to  the  power  whose 
consent  is  necessary  to  the  formation  and  ad- 
mission of  new  States  into  the  Union.  Con- 
gress may,  therefore,  make  it  a  condition  of  the 
admission  of  a  new  State,  that  slavery  shall  be 
forever  prohibited  within  the  same.  We  may, 
with  the  more  confidence,  pronounce  this  to  be 
the  true  construction  of  the  Constitution,  as  it 
has  been  so  amply  confirmed  by  the  past  deci- 
sions of  Congress. 

Although  the  articles  of  confederation  were 
drawn  up  and  approved  by  the  old  Congress, 
in  the  year  1777,  and  soon  afterwards  were 
ratified  by  some  of  the  States,  their  complete 


ON    THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  37 

ratification  did  not  take  place  until  the  year 
1781.  The  States  which  possessed  small  and 
already  settled  territory,  withheld  their  ratifi- 
cation, in  order  to  obtain  from  the  large  States 
a  cession  to  the  United  States  of  a  portion  of 
their  vacant  territory.  Without  entering  into 
the  reasons  on  which  this  demand  was  urged,8  it 
is  well  known  that  they  had  an  influence  on 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  and 
Virginia,  which  States  ceded  to  the  United 
States  their  respective  claims  to  the  territory 
lying  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio.  This  ces- 
sion was  made  on  the  express  condition,  that 
the  ceded  territory  should  be  sold  for  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  the  United  States;  that  it 
should  be  laid  out  into  States,  and  that  the 
States  so  laid  out  should  form  distinct  republi- 
can States,  and  be  admitted  as  members  of  the 
Federal  Union,  having  the  same  rights  of  sover- 
eignty, freedom,  and  independence  as  the  other 
States.  Of  the  four  States  which  made  this 
cession,  two  permitted,  and  the  other  two  pro- 
hibited slavery. 

The  United  States  having  in  this  manner 
become  proprietors  of  the  extensive  territory 
northwest  of  the  river  Ohio,  although  the  con- 
federation contained  no  express  provision  upon 


38  RUFUS  KING. 

the  subject,  Congress,  the  only  representatives 
of  the  United  States,  assumed  as  incident  to 
their  office,  the  power  to  dispose  of  this  terri- 
tory ;  and  for  this  purpose,  to  divide  the  same 
into  distinct  States,  to  provide  for  the  tempo- 
rary government  of  the  inhabitants  thereof,  and 
for  their  ultimate  admission  as  new  States  into 
the  Federal  Union. 

The  ordinance  for  those  purposes,  which  was 
passed  by  Congress  in  1787,  contains  certain 
articles,  which  are  called  "  Articles  of  compact 
between  the  original  States  and  the  people  and 
States  within  the  said  territory,  for  ever  to  re- 
main unalterable,  unless  by  common  consent." 
The  sixth  of  those  unalterable  articles  pro- 
vides, "  that  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  in  the  said  territory." 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  sup- 
plies the  defect  that  existed  in  the  articles  of 
confederation,  and  has  vested  Congress,  as  has 
been  stated,  with  ample  powers  on  this  im- 
portant subject.  Accordingly,  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  passed  by  the  old  Congress,  was  ratified 
and  confirmed  by  an  act  of  the  new  Congress 
during  their  first  session  under  the  Constitution. 

The  State  of  Virginia,  which  ceded  to  the 
United  States  her  claims  to  this  territory,  con- 


ON   THE   MISSOURI  BILL.  39 

sented  by  her  delegates  in  the  old  Congress  to 
this  ordinance — not  only  Virginia,  but  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  by  the 
unanimous  votes  of  their  delegates  in  the  old 
Congress,  approved  of  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
by  which  slavery  is  forever  abolished  in  the 
territory  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio. 

Without  the  votes  of  these  States,  the  ordi- 
nance could  not  have  passed ;  and  there  is  no 
recollection  of  an  opposition  from  any  of  these 
States  to  the  act  of  confirmation,  passed  under 
the  actual  Constitution.  Slavery  had  long  been 
established  in  these  States — the  evil  was  felt  in 
their  institutions,  laws,  and  habits,  and  could 
not  easily  or  at  once  be  abolished.  But  these 
votes  so  honorable  to  these  States,  satisfactorily 
demonstrate  their  unwillingness  to  permit  the 
extension  of  slavery  into  the  new  States  which 
might  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  the  Union. 

The  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  on 
the  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio,  have  been  ad- 
mitted by  Congress  into  the  Union,  on  the 
condition  and  conformably  to  the  article  of 
compact,  contained  in  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
and  by  which  it  is  declared  that  there  shall  be 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in 
any  of  the  said  States. 


4O  RUFUS  KING. 

Although  Congress  possess  the  power  of  mak- 
ing the  exclusion  of  slavery  a  part  or  condition 
of  the  act  admitting  a  new  State  into  the 
Union,  they  may,  in  special  cases,  and  for  suf- 
ficient reasons,  forbear  to  exercise  this  power. 
Thus  Kentucky  and  Vermont  were  admitted  as 
new  States  into  the  Union,  without  making  the 
abolition  of  slavery  the  condition  of  their  ad- 
mission. In  Vermont,  slavery  never  existed ; 
her  laws  excluding  the  same.  Kentucky  was 
formed  out  of,  and  settled  by,  Virginia,  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Kentucky,  equally  with  those  of 
Virginia,  by  fair  interpretation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, were  exempt  from  all  such  interference  of 
Congress,  as  might  disturb  or  impair  the  security 
of  their  property  in  slaves.  The  western  terri- 
tory of  North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  having 
been  partially  granted  and  settled  under  the 
authority  of  these  States,  before  the  cession 
thereof  to  the  United  States,  and  these  States 
being  original  parties  to  the  Constitution  which 
recognizes  the  existence  of  slavery,  no  measure 
restraining  slavery  could  be  applied  by  Congress 
to  this  territory.  But  to  remove  all  doubt  on 
this  head,  it  was  made  a  condition  of  the  cession 
of  this  territory  to  the  United  States,  that  the 
ordinance  of  1787,  except  the  sixth  article 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  41 

thereof,  respecting  slavery,  should  be  applied 
to  the  same  ;  and  that  the  sixth  article  should 
not  be  so  applied.  Accordingly,  the  States  of 
Tennessee,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama,  compre- 
hending the  territory  ceded  to  the  United 
States  by  North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  have 
been  admitted  as  new  States  into  the  Union, 
without  a  provision,  by  which  slavery  shall  be 
excluded  from  the  same.  According  to  this 
abstract  of  the  proceedings  of  Congress  in  the 
admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union,  of  the 
eight  new  States  within  the  original  limits  of 
the  United  States,  four  have  been  admitted 
without  an  article  excluding  slavery ;  three 
have  been  admitted  on  the  condition  that 
slavery  should  be  excluded ;  and  one  admitted 
without  such  condition.  In  the  few  first  cases, 
Congress  were  restrained  from  exercising  the 
power  to  exclude  slavery  ;  in  the  next  three, 
they  exercised  this  power ;  and  in  the  last,  it 
was  unnecessary  to  do  so,  slavery  being  ex- 
cluded by  the  State  Constitution. 

The  province  of  Louisiana,  soon  after  its  ces- 
sion to  the  United  States,  was  divided  into  two 
territories,  comprehending  such  parts  thereof 
as  were  contiguous  to  the  river  Mississippi, 
being  the  only  parts  of  the  province  that  were 


42  RUFUS  KING. 

inhabited.  The  foreign  language,  laws,  cus- 
toms, and  manners  of  the  inhabitants,  required 
the  immediate  and  cautious  attention  of  Con- 
gress, which,  instead  of  extending,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  these  territories  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  ordained  special  regulations  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  same.  These  regulations  were 
from  time  to  time  revised  and  altered,  as  obser- 
vation and  experience  showed  to  be  expedient, 
and  as  was  deemed  most  likely  to  encourage  and 
promote  those  changes  which  would  soonest 
qualify  the  inhabitants  for  self-government  and 
admission  into  the  Union.  When  the  United 
States  took  possession  of  the  province  of 
Louisiana  in  1804,  it  was  estimated  to  contain 
50,000  white  inhabitants,  40,000  slaves,  and 
2,000  free  persons  of  color. 

More  than  four-fifths  of  the  whites,  and  all 
the  slaves,  except  about  thirteen  hundred,  in- 
habited New  Orleans  and  the  adjacent  territory  ; 
the  residue,  consisting  of  less  than  ten  thousand 
whites,  and  about  thirteen  hundred  slaves,  were 
dispersed  throughout  the  country  now  included 
in  the  Arkansas  and  Missouri  territories.4  The 
greater  part  of  the  thirteen  hundred  slaves 
were  in  the  Missouri  territory,  some  of  them 
having  been  removed  thither  from  the  old 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  43 

French  settlements  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Mississippi,  after  the  passing  of  the  ordinance 
of  1787,  by  which  slavery  in  those  settlements 
was  abolished. 

In  1812,  the  territory  of  New  Orleans,  to 
which  the  ordinance  of  1787,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  certain  parts  thereof,  had  been  pre- 
viously extended,  was  permitted  by  Congress 
to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Government, 
and  admitted  as  a  new  State  into  the  Union, 
by  the  name  of  Louisiana.  The  acts  of  Con- 
gress for  these  purposes,  in  addition  to  sundry 
important  provisions  respecting  rivers  and  pub- 
lic lands,  which  are  declared  to  be  irrevocable 
unless  by  common  consent,  annex  other  terms 
and  conditions,  whereby  it  is  established,  not 
only  that  the  Constitution  of  Louisiana  should 
be  republican,  but  that  it  should  contain  the 
fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  that  it  should  secure  to  the  citizens  the 
trial  by  jury  in  all  criminal  cases,  and  the  privi- 
lege of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  according  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and 
after  its  admission  into  the  Union,  that  the 
laws  which  Louisiana  might  pass,  should  be 
promulgated  ;  its  records  of  every  description 
preserved  ;  and  its  judicial  and  legislative  pro- 


44  RUFUS  KING. 

ceedings  conducted  in  the  language  in  which 
the  laws  and  judicial  proceedings  of  the  United 
States  are  published  and  conducted. 

•*         -x-         #         #         •&         *         -X-* 

Having  annexed  these  new  and  extraordi- 
nary conditions  to  the  act  for  the  admission  of 
Louisiana  into  the  Union,  Congress  may,  if 
they  shall  deem  it  expedient,  annex  the  like 
conditions  to  the  act  for  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri ;  and,  moreover,  as  in  the  case  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois,  provide  by  an  article 
for  that  purpose,  that  slavery  shall  not  exist 
within  the  same. 

Admitting  this  construction  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  is  alleged  that  the  power  by  which  Con- 
gress excluded  slavery  from  the  States  north- 
west of  the  river  Ohio,  is  suspended  in  respect 
to  the  States  that  may  be  formed  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Louisiana.  The  article  of  the  treaty 
referred  to  declares  :  "  That  the  inhabitants  of 
the  territory  shall  be  incorporated  in  the  Union 
of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as 
possible ;  according  to  the  principles  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all 
rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States ;  and  in  the  meantime, 
they  shall  be  maintained  and  protected  in  the 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  45 

free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  property,  and 
the  religion  which  they  profess." " 

Although  there  is  want  of  precision  in  the 
article,  its  scope  and  meaning  can  not  be  mis- 
understood. It  constitutes  a  stipulation  by 
which  the  United  States  engage  that  the  in- 
habitants of  Louisiana  should  be  formed  into  a 
State  or  States,  and  as  soon  as  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  permit,  that  they  should  be 
admitted  as  new  States  into  the  Union  on  the 
footing  of  the  other  States ;  and  before  such 
admission,  and  during  their  territorial  govern- 
ment, that  they  should  be  maintained  and  pro- 
tected by  Congress  in  the  enjoyment  of  their 
liberty,  property,  and  religion.  The  first  clause 
of  this  stipulation  will  be  executed  by  the  ad- 
mission of  Missouri  as  a  new  State  into  the 
Union,  as  such  admission  will  impart  to  the  in- 
habitants of  Missouri  "  all  the  rights,  advan- 
tages, and  immunities "  which  citizens  of  the 
United  States  derive  from  the  Constitution 
thereof ;  these  rights  may  be  denominated  Fed- 
eral rights,  are  uniform  throughout  the  Union, 
and  are  common  to  all  its  citizens :  but  the 
rights  derived  from  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  States,  which  may  be  denominated  State 
rights,  in  many  particulars  differ  from  each 


46  RUFUS  KING. 

other.  Thus,  while  the  Federal  rights  of  the 
citizens  of  Massachusetts  and  Virginia  are  the 
same,  their  State  rights  are  dissimilar  and  dif- 
ferent, slavery  being  forbidden  in  one,  and 
permitted  in  the  other  State.  This  difference 
arises  out  of  the  Constitutions  and  laws  of  the 
two  States,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  difference 
in  the  rights  of  the  citizens  of  these  States  to 
vote  for  representatives  in  Congress  arises  out 
of  the  State  laws  and  Constitution.  In  Massa- 
chusetts, every  person  of  lawful  age,  and  pos- 
sessing property  of  any  sort,  of  the  value  of 
two  hundred  dollars,  may  vote  for  representa- 
tives to  Congress.  In  Virginia,  no  person  can 
vote  for  representatives  to  Congress,  unless  he 
be  a  freeholder.  As  the  admission  of  a  new 
State  into  the  Union  confers  upon  its  citizens 
only  the  rights  denominated  Federal,  and  as 
these  are  common  to  the  citizens  of  all  the 
States,  as  well  of  those  in  which  slavery  is  pro- 
hibited, as  of  those  in  which  it  is  allowed,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Missouri 
will  not  impair  the  Federal  rights  of  its  citizens, 
and  that  such  prohibition  is  not  sustained  by 
the  clause  of  the  treaty  which  has  been  cited.7 

******* 
As   all   nations  do   not   permit   slavery,  the 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  47 

term  property,  in  its  common  and  universal 
meaning,  does  not  include  or  describe  slaves. 
In  treaties,  therefore,  between  nations,  and 
especially  in  those  of  the  United  States,  when- 
ever stipulations  respecting  slaves  were  to  be 
made,  the  word  "  negroes,"  or  "  slaves,"  have 
been  employed,  and  the  omission  of  these  words 
in  this  clause,  increases  the  uncertainty  whether, 
by  the  term  property,  slaves  were  intended  to 
be  included.  But  admitting  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  parties,  the  stipulation  is  not 
only  temporary,  but  extends  no  further  than  to 
the  property  actually  possessed  by  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Missouri,  when  it  was  first  occupied  by 
the  United  States.  Property  since  acquired  by 
them,  and  property  acquired  or  possessed  by 
the  new  inhabitants  of  Missouri,  has  in  each 
case  been  acquired  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  not  during  and  under  the  laws  of 
the  province  of  Louisiana.  Should,  therefore, 
the  future  introduction  of  slaves  into  Missouri 
be  forbidden,  the  feelings  of  the  citizens  would 
soon  become  reconciled  to  their  exclusion,  and 
the  inconsiderable  number  of  slaves  owned  by 
the  inhabitants  at  the  date  of  the  cession  of 
Louisiana,  would  be  emancipated  or  sent  for 
sale  into  States  where  slavery  exists. 


48  RUFUS  KING. 

It  is  further  objected,  that  the  article  of  the 
act  of  admission  into  the  Union,  by  which 
slavery  should  be  excluded  from  Missouri, 
would  be  nugatory,  as  the  new  State  in  virtue 
of  its  sovereignty  would  be  at  liberty  to  revoke 
its  consent,  and  annul  the  article  by  which 
slavery  is  excluded. 

Such  revocation  would  be  contrary  to  the 
obligations  of  good  faith,  which  enjoins  the  ob- 
servance of  our  engagements ;  it  would  be  re- 
pugnant to  the  principles  on  which  government 
itself  is  founded  ;  sovereignty  in  every  lawful 
government  is  a  limited  power,  and  can  do  only 
what  it  is  lawful  to  do.  Sovereigns,  like  indi- 
viduals, are  bound  by  their  engagements,  and 
have  no  moral  power  to  break  them.  Treaties 
between  nations  repose  on  this  principle.  If 
the  new  State  can  revoke  and  annul  an  article 
concluded  between  itself  and  the  United  States, 
by  which  slavery  is  excluded  from  it,  it  may 
revoke  and  annul  any  other  article  of  the  com- 
pact ;  it  may,  for  example,  annul  the  article 
respecting  public  lands,  and  in  virtue  of  its 
sovereignty,  assume  the  right  to  tax  and  to  sell 
the  lands  of  the  United  States.  There  is  yet 
a  more  satisfactory  answer  to  this  objection. 
The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  is  co- 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  49 

extensive  with  their  legislative  power,  and  every 
question  arising  under  the  Constitution  or  laws 
of  the  United  States,  is  recognizable  by  the 
judiciary  thereof.  Should  the  new  State  re- 
scind any  of  the  articles  of  compact  contained 
in  the  act  of  admission  into  the  Union,  that,  for 
example,  by  which  slavery  is  excluded,  and 
should  pass  a  law  authorizing  slavery,  the  judi- 
ciary of  the  United  States  on  proper  applica- 
tion, would  immediately  deliver  from  bondage, 
•any  person  retained  as  a  slave  in  said  State. 
And,  in  like  manner,  in  all  instances  affecting 
individuals,  the  judiciary  might  be  employed  to 
defeat  every  attempt  to  violate  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  United  States. 

If  Congress  possess  the  power  to  exclude 
slavery  from  Missouri,  it  still  remains  to  be 
shown  that  they  ought  to  do  so.  The  exam- 
ination of  this  branch  of  the  subject,  for  ob- 
vious reasons,  is  attended  with  peculiar  diffi- 
culty, and  cannot  be  made  without  passing  over 
arguments  which,  to  some  of  us,  might  appear 
to  be  decisive,  but  the  use  of  which,  in  this 
place,  would  call  up  feelings,  the  influence  of 
which  would  disturb,  if  not  defeat,  the  impar- 
tial consideration  of  the  subject. 

Slavery,  unhappily,  exists  within  the  United 


50  RUFUS  KING. 

States.  Enlightened  men,  in  the  States  where 
it  is  permitted,  and  everywhere  out  of  them, 
regret  its  existence  among  us,  and  seek  for  the 
means  of  limiting  and  of  mitigating  it.  The 
first  introduction  of  slaves  is  not  imputable  to 
the  present  generation,  nor  even  to  their  ances- 
tors. Before  the  year  1642,  the  trade  and  ports 
of  the  colonies  were  open  to  foreigners  equally 
as  those  of  the  mother  country ;  and  as  early 
as  1620,  a  few  years  only  after  the  planting  of 
the  colony  of  Virginia,  and  the  same  year  in 
which  the  first  settlement  was  made  in  the  old 
colony  of  Plymouth,  a  cargo  of  negroes  was 
brought  into  and  sold  as  slaves  in  Virginia  by  a 
foreign  ship.  From  this  beginning,  the  impor- 
tation of  slaves  was  continued  for  nearly  two 
centuries.  To  her  honor,  Virginia,  while  a 
colony,  opposed  the  importation  of  slaves,  and 
was  the  first  State  to  prohibit  the  same,  by  a 
law  passed  for  this  purpose  in  1778,  thirty  years 
before  the  general  prohibition  enacted  by  Con- 
gress in  1808.  The  laws  and  customs  of  the 
States  in  which  slavery  has  existed  for  so  long 
a  period,  must  have  had  their  influence  on  the 
opinions  and  habits  of  the  citizens,  which  ought 
not  to  be  disregarded  on  the  present  occasion. 
*  *  #  #  #  *  *  • 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  51 

When  the  general  convention  that  formed 
the  Constitution  took  this  subject  into  their 
consideration,  the  whole  question  was  once 
more  examined ;  and  while  it  was  agreed  that 
all  contributions  to  the  common  treasury  should 
be  made  according  to  the  ability  of  the  several 
States  to  furnish  the  same,  the  old  difficulty 
recurred  in  agreeing  upon  a  rule  whereby  such 
ability  should  be  ascertained,  there  being  no 
simple  standard  by  which  the  ability  of  indi- 
viduals to  pay  taxes  can  be  ascertained.  A 
diversity  in  the  selection  of  taxes  has  been 
deemed  requisite  to  their  equalization.  Between 
communities  this  difficulty  is  less  considerable, 
and  although  the  rule  of  relative  numbers 
would  not  accurately  measure  the  relative 
wealth  of  nations,  in  States  in  the  circumstances 
of  the  United  States,  whose  institutions,  laws, 
and  employments  are  so  much  alike,  the  rule 
of  numbers  is  probably  as  near  equal  as  any 
other  simple  and  practical  rule  can  be  expected 
to  be  (though  between  the  old  and  new  States 
its  equity  is  defective), — these  considerations, 
added  to  the  approbation  which  had  already 
been  given  to  the  rule,  by  a  majority  of  the 
States,  induced  the  convention  to  agree  that 
direct  taxes  should  be  apportioned  among  the 


52  RUFUS  KING. 

States,  according  to  the  whole  number  of  free 
persons,  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  which 
they  might  respectively  contain. 

The  rule  for  apportionment  of  taxes  is  not 
necessarily  the  most  equitable  rule  for  the  ap- 
portionment of  representatives  among  the 
States ;  property  must  not  be  disregarded  in 
the  composition  of  the  first  rule,  but  frequently 
is  overlooked  in  the  establishment  of  the  second. 
A  rule  which  might  be  approved  in  respect  to 
taxes,  would  be  disapproved  in  respect  to  repre- 
sentatives ;  one  individual  possessing  twice  as 
much  property  as  another,  might  be  required  to 
pay  double  the  taxes  of  such  other ;  but  no 
man  has  two  votes  to  another's  one  ;  rich  or 
poor,  each  has  but  a  single  vote  in  the  choice 
of  representatives. 

In  the  dispute  between  England  and  the 
colonies,  the  latter  denied  the  right  of  the 
former  to  tax  them,  because  they  were  not 
represented  in  the  English  Parliament.  They 
contended  that,  according  to  the  law  of  the 
land,  taxation  and  representation  were  insepar- 
able. The  rule  of  taxation  being  agreed  upon 
by  the  convention,  it  is  possible  that  the  maxim 
with  which  we  successfully  opposed  the  claim 
of  England  may  have  had  an  influence  in  pro- 


ON    THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  53 

curing  the  adoption  of  the  same  rule  for  the 
apportionment  of  representatives ;  the  true 
meaning,  however,  of  this  principle  of  the  Eng- 
lish constitution  is,  that  a  colony  or  district  is 
not  to  be  taxed  which  is  not  represented ;  not 
that  its  number  of  representatives  shall  be 
ascertained  by  its  quota  of  taxes.  If  three- 
fifths  of  the  slaves  are  virtually  represented,  or 
their  owners  obtain  a  disproportionate  power 
in  legislation,  and  in  the  appointment  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  why  should  not 
other  property  be  virtually  represented,  and  its 
owners  obtain  a  like  power  in  legislation,  and 
in  the  choice  of  the  President?  Property  is 
not  confined  in  slaves,  but  exists  in  houses, 
stores,  ships,  capital  in  trade,  and  manufactures. 
To  secure  to  the  owners  of  property  in  slaves 
greater  political  power  than  is  allowed  to  the 
owners  of  other  and  equivalent  property,  seems 
to  be  contrary  to  our  theory  of  the  equality  of 
personal  rights,  inasmuch  as  the  citizens  of 
some  States  thereby  become  entitled  to  other 
and  greater  political  power  than  the  citizens  of 
other  States.  The  present  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives consist  of  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
one  members,  which  are  apportioned  among 
the  States  in  a  ratio  of  one  representative  for 


54  RUFUS  KING. 

every  thirty-five  thousand  federal  members, 
which  are  ascertained  by  adding  to  the  whole 
number  of  free  persons,  three-fifths  of  the 
slaves.  According  to  the  last  census,  the 
whole  number  of  slaves  within  the  United 
was  1,191,364,  which  entitles  the  States  pos- 
sessing the  same  to  twenty  representatives,  and 
twenty  presidential  electors  more  than  they 
would  be  entitled  to,  were  the  slaves  excluded. 
By  the  last  census,  Virginia  contained  582,104 
free  persons,  and  392,518  slaves.  In  any  of  the 
States  where  slavery  is  excluded,  582,104  free 
persons  would  be  entitled  to  elect  only  sixteen 
representatives,  while  in  Virginia,  582,104  free 
persons,  by  the  addition  of  three-fifths  of  her 
slaves,  become  entitled  to  elect,  and  do  in  fact 
elect,  twenty-three  representatives,  being  seven 
additional  ones  on  account  of  her  slaves.  Thus, 
while  35,000  free  persons  are  requisite  to  elect 
one  representative  in  a  State  where  slavery  is 
prohibited,  25,559  ^ree  persons  in  Virginia  may 
and  do  elect  a  representative  :  so  that  five  free 
persons  in  Virginia  have  as  much  power  in  the 
choice  of  Representatives  to  Congress,  and  in 
the  appointment  of  presidential  electors,  as 
seven  free  persons  in  any  of  the  States  in  which 
slavery  does  not  exist. 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  55 

This  inequality  in  the  apportionment  of 
representatives  was  not  misunderstood  at  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  but  no  one  antici- 
pated the  fact  that  the  whole  of  the  revenue  of 
the  United  States  would  be  derived  from  indi- 
rect taxes  (which  cannot  be  supposed  to  spread 
themselves  over  the  several  States  according  to 
the  rule  for  the  apportionment  of  direct  taxes), 
but  it  was  believed  that  a  part  of  the  contribu- 
tion to  the  common  treasury  would  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  States  by  the  rule  for  the 
apportionment  of  representatives.  The  States 
in  which  slavery  is  prohibited,  ultimately, 
though  with  reluctance,  acquiesced  in  the  dis- 
proportionate number  of  representatives  and 
electors  that  was  secured  to  the  slaveholding 
States.  The  concession  was,  at  the  time,  be- 
lieved to  be  a  great  one,  and  has  proved  to 
have  been  the  greatest  which  was  made  to 
secure  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

Great,  however,  as  this  concession  was,  it  was 
definite,  and  its  full  extent  was  comprehended. 
It  was  a  settlement  between  the  original  thir- 
teen States.  The  considerations  arising  out  of 
their  actual  condition,  their  past  connection, 
and  the  obligation  which  all  felt  to  promote  a 
reformation  in  the  Federal  Government,  were 


56  RUFUS  KING. 

peculiar  to  the  time  and  to  the  parties,  and  are 
not  applicable  to  the  new  States,  which  Con- 
gress may  now  be  willing  to  admit  into  the 
Union. 

The  equality  of  rights,  which  includes  an 
equality  of  burdens,  is  a  vital  principle  in  our 
theory  of  government,  and  its  jealous  preserva- 
tion is  the  best  security  of  public  and  individual 
freedom ;  the  departure  from  this  principle  in 
the  disproportionate  power  and  influence,  al- 
lowed to  the  slaveholding  States,  was  a  neces- 
sary sacrifice  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Constitution.  The  effect  of  this  concession 
has  been  obvious  in  the  preponderance  which 
it  has  given  to  the  slaveholding  States  over  the 
other  States.  Nevertheless,  it  is  an  ancient 
settlement,  and  faith  and  honor  stand  pledged 
not  to  disturb  it.  But  the  extension  of  this 
disproportionate  power  to  the  new  States 
would  be  unjust  and  odious.  The  States 
whose  power  would  be  abridged,  and  whose 
burdens  would  be  increased  by  the  measure, 
cannot  be  expected  to  consent  to  it,  and  we 
may  hope  that  the  other  States  are  too  magna- 
nimous to  insist  on  it. 

•*         *         •*         #         #         *         •*» 

It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  first 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  57 

and  main  object  of  the  negotiation  which  led 
to  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  was  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  a  river  that  forms 
the  sole  passage  from  the  western  States  to  the 
ocean.  This  navigation,  although  of  general 
benefit,  has  been  always  valued  and  desired,  as 
of  peculiar  advantage  to  the  Western  States, 
whose  demands  to  obtain  it  were  neither  equiv- 
ocal nor  unreasonable.  But  with  the  river 
Mississippi,  by  a  sort  of  coercion,  we  acquired, 
by  good  or  ill  fortune,  as  our  future  measures 
shall  determine,  the  whole  province  of  Louisi- 
ana. As  this  acquisition  was  made  at  the 
common  expense,  it  is  very  fairly  urged  that 
the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  it  should 
also  be  common.  This,  it  is  said,  will  not  hap- 
pen if  slavery  be  excluded  from  Missouri,  as 
the  citizens  of  the  States  where  slavery  is  per- 
mitted will  be  shut  out,  and  none  but  citizens 
of  States  where  slavery  is  prohibited,  can  be- 
come inhabitants  of  Missouri. 

But  this  consequence  will  not  arise  from  the 
proposed  exclusion  of  slavery.  The  citizens  of 
States  in  which  slavery  is  allowed,  like  all  other 
citizens,  will  be  free  to  become  inhabitants  of 
Missouri,  in  like  manner  as  they  have  become 
inhabitants  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  in 


58  RUFUS  KING. 

which  slavery  is  forbidden.  The  exclusion  of 
slaves  from  Missouri  will  not,  therefore,  operate 
unequally  among  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  The  Constitution  provides,  "  that  the 
citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  enjoy 
all  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
several  States  " ;  every  citizen  may,  therefore, 
remove  from  one  to  another  State,  and  there 
enjoy  the  rights  and  immunities  of  its  citizens. 
The  proposed  provision  excludes  slaves,  not  citi- 
zens, whose  rights  it  will  not,  and  cannot  impair. 
Besides  there  is  nothing  new  or  peculiar 
in  a  provision  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery; 
it  has  been  established  in  the  States  north- 
west of  the  river  Ohio,  and  has  existed  from 
the  beginning  in  the  old  States  where  slavery 
is  forbidden.  The  citizens  of  States  where 
slavery  is  allowed,  may  become  inhabitants 
of  Missouri,  but  cannot  hold  slaves  there, 
nor  in  any  other  State  where  slavery  is  pro- 
hibited. As  well  might  the  laws  prohibiting 
slavery  in  the  old  States  become  the  subject  of 
complaint,  as  the  proposed  exclusion  of  slavery 
in  Missouri ;  but  there  is  no  foundation  for 
such  complaint  in  either  case.  It  is  further 
urged,  that  the  admission  of  slaves  into  Mis- 
souri would  be  limited  to  the  slaves  who  are 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  59 

already  within  the  United  States  ;  that  their 
health  and  comfort  would  be  promoted  by 
their  dispersion,  and  that  their  numbers  would 
be  the  same  whether  they  remain  confined  to 
the  States  where  slavery  exists,  or  are  dispersed 
over  the  new  States  that  may  be  admitted  into 
the  Union." 

That  none  but  domestic  slaves  would  be 
introduced  into  Missouri,  and  the  other  new 
and  frontier  States,  is  most  fully  disproved  by 
the  thousands  of  fresh  slaves,  which,  in  viola- 
tion of  our  laws,  are  annually  imported  into 
Alabama,  Louisiana,  and  Mississippi. 

We  may  renew  our  efforts,  and  enact  new 
laws  with  heavier  penalties  against  the  importa- 
tion of  slaves :  the  revenue  cutters  may  more 
diligently  watch  our  shores,  and  the  naval  force 
may  be  employed  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  and 
on  the  ocean,  to  break  up  the  slave  trade — but 
these  means  will  not  put  an  end  to  it ;  so  long 
as  markets  are  open  for  the  purchase  of  slaves, 
so  long  they  will  be  supplied  ; — and  so  long  as 
we  permit  the  existence  of  slavery  in  our  new 
and  frontier  States,  so  long  slave  markets  will 
exist.  The  plea  of  humanity  is  equally  inad- 
missible, since  no  one  who  has  ever  witnessed 
the  experiment  will  believe  that  the  condition 


6O  RUFUS  KING. 

of  slaves  is  made  better  by  the  breaking  up,  and 
separation  of  their  families,  nor  by  their  re- 
moval from  the  old  States  to  the  new  ones  ; 
and  the  objection  to  the  provision  of  the  bill, 
excluding  slavery  from  Missouri,  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  like  prohibitions  of  the  old 
States  :  these  should  be  revoked,  in  order  that 
the  slaves  now  confined  to  certain  States,  may, 
for  their  health  and  comfort,  and  multiplica- 
tion, be  spread  over  the  whole  Union." 
******* 

Slavery  cannot  exist  in  Missouri  without  the 
consent  of  Congress  ;  the  question  may  there- 
fore be  considered,  in  certain  lights,  as  a  new 
one,  it  being  the  first  instance  in  which  an 
inquiry  respecting  slavery,  in  a  case  so  free 
from  the  influence  of  the  ancient  laws,  usages, 
and  manners  of  the  country,  has  come  before 
the  Senate. 

The  territory  of  Missouri  is  beyond  our 
ancient  limits,  and  the  inquiry  whether  slavery 
shall  exist  there,  is  open  to  many  of  the  argu- 
ments that  might  be  employed,  had  slavery 
never  existed  within  the  United  States.  It  is 
a  question  of  no  ordinary  importance.  Free- 
dom and  slavery  are  the  parties  which  stand 
this  day  before  the  Senate  ;  and  upon  its  de- 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  BILL.  6 1 

cision  the  empire  of  the  one  or  the  other  will 
be  established  in  the  new  State  which  we  are 
about  to  admit  into  the  Union. 

If  slavery  be  permitted  in  Missouri  with  the 
climate,  and  soil,  and  in  the  circumstances  of 
this  territory,  what  hope  can  be  entertained 
that  it  will  ever  be  prohibited  in  any  of  the 
new  States  that  will  be  formed  in  the  immense 
region  west  of  the  Mississippi  ?  Will  the  co-exten- 
sive establishment  of  slavery  and  of  the  new 
States  throughout  this  region,  lessen  the  dan- 
gers of  domestic  insurrection,  or  of  foreign  ag- 
gression ?  Will  this  manner  of  executing  the 
great  trust  of  admitting  new  States  into  the 
Union,  contribute  to  assimilate  our  manners 
and  usages,  to  increase  our  mutual  affection  and 
confidence,  and  to  establish  that  equality  of 
benefits  and  burdens  which  constitutes  the  true 
basis  of  our  strength  and  union  ?  Will  the 
militia  of  the  nation,  which  must  furnish  our 
soldiers  and  seamen,  increase  as  slaves  increase  ? 
Will  the  actual  disproportion  in  the  military 
service  of  the  nation  be  thereby  diminished? 
— a  disproportion  that  will  be,  as  it  has  been, 
readily  borne,  as  between  the  original  States, 
because  it  arises  out  of  their  compact  of  Union, 
but  which  may  become  a  badge  of  inferiority, 


62  RUFUS  KING. 

if  required  for  the  protection  of  those  who, 
being  free  to  choose,  persist  in  the  establish- 
ment of  maxims,  the  inevitable  effect  of  which 
will  deprive  them  of  the  power  to  contribute  to 
the  common  defence,  and  even  of  the  ability  to 
protect  themselves.  There  are  limits  within 
which  our  federal  system  must  stop ;  no  one 
has  supposed  that  it  could  be  indefinitely  ex- 
tended— we  are  now  about  to  pass  our  original 
boundary  ;  if  this  can  be  done  without  affect- 
ing the  principles  of  our  free  governments,  it 
can  be  accomplished  only  by  the  most  vigilant 
attention  to  plant,  cherish,  and  sustain  the 
principles  of  liberty  in  the  new  States,  that 
may  be  formed  beyond  our  ancient  limits ; 
with  our  utmost  caution  in  this  respect,  it  may 
still  be  justly  apprehended  that  the  General 
Government  must  be  made  stronger  as  we  be- 
come more  extended. 

But  if,  instead  of  freedom,  slavery  is  to  pre- 
vail and  spread,  as  we  extend  our  dominion, 
can  any  reflecting  man  fail  to  see  the  necessity 
of  giving  to  the  General  Government  greater 
powers,  to  enable  it  to  afford  the  protection 
that  will  be  demanded  of  it  ?  powers  that  will 
be  difficult  to  control,  and  which  may  prove 
fatal  to  the  public  liberties." 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY,* 

OF   MARYLAND.1 
(BORN  1764,  DIED  1822.) 


ON  THE   MISSOURI  QUESTION  2 — UNITED  STATES 
SENATE,  FEBRUARY   15,  l82O. 

As  I  am  not  a  very  frequent  speaker  in  this 
assembly,  and  have  shown  a  desire,  I  trust, 
rather  to  listen  to  the  wisdom  of  others  than  to 
lay  claim  to  superior  knowledge  by  undertak- 
ing to  advise,  even  when  advice,  by  being  sea- 
sonable in  point  of  time,  might  have  some 
chance  of  being  profitable,  you  will,  perhaps, 
bear  with  me  if  I  venture  to  trouble  you  once 
more  on  that  eternal  subject  which  has  lingered 
here,  until  all  its  natural  interest  is  exhausted, 
and  every  topic  connected  with  it  is  literally 
worn  to  tatters.  I  shall,  I  assure  you,  sir, 
speak  with  laudable  brevity — not  merely  on 
account  of  the  feeble  state  of  my  health,  and 

*  For  notes  on  Pinkney,  see  Appendix,  p.  357- 
63 


64  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

from  some  reverence  for  the  laws  of  good  taste 
which  forbid  me  to  speak  otherwise,  but  also 
from  a  sense  of  justice  to  those  who  honor  me 
with  their  attention.  My  single  purpose,  as  I 
suggested  yesterday,  is  to  subject  to  a  friendly, 
yet  close  examination,  some  portions  of  a 
speech,  imposing,  certainly,  on  account  of  the 
distinguished  quarter  from  whence  it  came — 
not  very  imposing  (if  I  may  so  say,  without 
departing  from  that  respect  which  I  sincerely 
feel  and  intend  to  manifest  for  eminent  abilities 
and  long  experience)  for  any  other  reason.3 
#  *  *  *  *  #  * 

I  confess  to  you,  nevertheless,  that  some  of 
the  principles  announced  by  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  New  York,  with  an  explicitness 
that  reflected  the  highest  credit  on  his  candor, 
did,  when  they  were  first  presented,  startle  me 
not  a  little.  They  were  not  perhaps  entirely 
new.  Perhaps  I  had  seen  them  before  in  some 
shadowy  and  doubtful  shape, 

"  If  shape  it  might  be  called,  that  shape  had  none, 
Distinguishable  in  member,  joint,  or  limb." 

But  in  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech  they 
were  shadowy  and  doubtful  no  longer.  He  ex- 
hibited them  in  forms  so  boldly  and  accurately 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  65 

defined — with  contours  so  distinctly  traced — 
with  features  so  pronounced  and  striking  that  I 
was  unconscious  for  a  moment  that  they  might 
be  old  acquaintances.  I  received  them  as  a 
novi  hospites  within  these  walls,  and  gazed 
upon  them  with  astonishment  and  alarm.  I 
have  recovered,  however,  thank  God,  from  this 
paroxysm  of  terror,  although  not  from  that  of 
astonishment.  I  have  sought  and  found  tran- 
quillity and  courage  in  my  former  consolatory 
faith.  My  reliance  is  that  these  principles  will 
obtain  no  general  currency ;  for,  if  they  should, 
it  requires  no  gloomy  imagination  to  sadden 
the  perspective  of  the  future.  My  reliance  is 
upon  the  unsophisticated  good  sense  and  noble 
spirit  of  the  American  people.  I  have  what  I 
may  be  allowed  to  call  a  proud  and  patriotic 
trust,  that  they  will  give  countenance  to  no 
principles  which,  if  followed  out  to  their  obvi- 
ous consequences,  will  not  only  shake  the 
goodly  fabric  of  the  Union  to  its  foundations, 
but  reduce  it  to  a  melancholy  ruin.  The 
people  of  this  country,  if  I  do  not  wholly  mis- 
take their  character,  are  wise  as  well  as  virtu- 
ous. They  know  the  value  of  that  federal 
association  which  is  to  them  the  single  pledge 
and  guarantee  of  power  and  peace.  Their 


66  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

warm  and  pious  affections  will  cling  to  it  as  to 
their  only  hope  of  prosperity  and  happiness,  in 
defiance  of  pernicious  abstractions,  by  whom- 
soever inculcated,  or  howsoever  seductive  or 
alluring  in  their  aspect.4 

*****         #         •* 

Sir,  it  was  but  the  other  day  that  we  were 
forbidden,  (properly  forbidden  I  am  sure,  for 
the  prohibition  came  from  you,)5  to  assume  that 
there  existed  any  intention  to  impose  a  pro- 
spective restraint  on  the  domestic  legislation 
of  Missouri — a  restraint  to  act  upon  it  contem- 
poraneously with  its  origin  as  a  State,  and  to 
continue  adhesive  to  it  through  all  the  stages 
of  its  political  existence.  We  are  now,  how- 
ever, permitted  to  know  that  it  is  determined 
by  a  sort  of  political  surgery  to  amputate  one 
of  the  limbs  of  its  local  sovereignty,  and  thus 
mangled  and  disparaged,  and  thus  only,  to 
receive  it  into  the  bosom  of  the  Constitution. 
It  is  now  avowed  that,  while  Maine  is  to  be 
ushered  into  the  Union  with  every  possible 
demonstration  of  studious  reverence  on  our 
part,  and  on  hers,  with  colors  flying,  and  all  the 
other  graceful  accompaniments  of  honorable 
triumph,  this  ill-conditioned  upstart  of  the 
West,  this  obscure  foundling  of  a  wilderness 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  6? 

that  was  but  yesterday  the  hunting-ground  of 
the  savage,  is  to  find  her  way  into  the  Ameri- 
can family  as  she  can,  with  an  humiliating 
badge  of  remediless  inferiority  patched  upon 
her  garments,  with  the  mark  of  recent,  qualified 
manumission  upon  her,  or  rather  with  a  brand 
upon  her  forehead  to  tell  the  story  of  her  terri- 
torial vassalage,  and  to  perpetuate  the  memory 
of  her  evil  propensities.  It  is  now  avowed 
that,  while  the  robust  district  of  Maine  is  to  be 
seated  by  the  side  of  her  truly  respectable  par- 
ent, co-ordinate  in  authority  and  honor,  and  is 
to  be  dandled  into  that  power  and  dignity  of 
which  she  does  not  stand  in  need,  but  which 
undoubtedly  she  deserves,  the  more  infantine 
and  feeble  Missouri  is  to  be  repelled  with 
harshness,  and  forbidden  to  come  at  all,  unless 
with  the  iron  collar  of  servitude  about  her  neck, 
instead  of  the  civic  crown  of  republican  freedom 
upon  her  brows,  and  is  to  be  doomed  forever  to 
leading-strings,  unless  she  will  exchange  those 
leading-strings  for  shackles. 

I  am  told  that  you  have  the  power  to  estab- 
lish this  odious  and  revolting  distinction,  and  I 
am  referred  for  the  proofs  of  that  power  to 
various  parts  of  the  Constitution,  but  princi- 
pally to  that  part  of  it  which  authorizes  the 


68  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union.  I  am 
myself  of  opinion  that  it  is  in  that  part  only 
that  the  advocates  for  this  restriction  can,  with 
any  hope  of  success,  apply  for  a  license  to  im- 
pose it ;  and  that  the  efforts  which  have  been 
made  to  find  it  in  other  portions  of  that  instru- 
ment, are  too  desperate  to  require  to  be  en- 
countered. I  shall,  however,  examine  those 
other  portions  before  I  have  done,  lest  it  should 
be  supposed  by  those  who  have  relied  upon 
them,  that  what  I  omit  to  answer  I  believe  to 
be  unanswerable. 

The  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  relates 
to  the  admission  of  new  States  is  in  these 
words  :  "  The  Congress  may  admit  new  States 
into  this  Union,"  etc.,  and  the  advocates  for 
restriction  maintain  that  the  use  of  the  word 
"  may  "  imports  discretion  to  admit  or  to  re- 
ject ;  and  that  in  this  discretion  is  wrapped 
up  another — that  of  prescribing  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  admission  in  case  you  are  willing 
to  admit :  "  Cujus  est  dare  ejus  est  disponere."  ' 
I  will  not  for  the  present  inquire  whether  this 
involved  discretion  to  dictate  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission belongs  to  you  or  not.  It  is  fit  that 
I  should  first  look  to  the  nature  and  extent  , 
of  it.  \ 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  69 

I  think  I  may  assume  that  if  such  a  power  be 
anything  but  nominal,  it  is  much  more  than 
adequate  to  the  present  object — that  it  is  a 
power  of  vast  expansion,  to  which  human  sa- 
gacity can  assign  no  reasonable  limits — that  it 
is  a  capacious  reservoir  of  authority,  from  which 
you  may  take,  in  all  time  to  come,  as  occasion 
may  serve,  the  means  of  oppression  as  well  as 
of  benefaction.  I  know  that  it  professes  at 
this  moment  to  be  the  chosen  instrument  of 
protecting  mercy,  and  would  win  upon  us  by 
its  benignant  smiles  ;  but  I  know,  too,  it  can 
frown  and  play  the  tyrant,  if  it  be  so  disposed. 
Notwithstanding  the  softness  which  it  now  as- 
sumes, and  the  care  with  which  it  conceals  its 
giant  proportions  beneath  the  deceitful  drapery 
of  sentiment,  when  it  next  appears  before  you 
it  may  show  itself  with  a  sterner  countenance 
and  in  more  awful  dimensions.  It  is,  to  speak 
the  truth,  sir,  a  power  of  colossal  size — if  in- 
deed it  be  not  an  abuse  of  language  to  call  it 
by  the  gentle  name  of  a  power.  Sir,  it  is  a 
wilderness  of  power,  of  which  fancy  in  her  hap- 
piest mood  is  unable  to  perceive  the  far  distant 
and  shadowy  boundary.  Armed  with  such  a 
power,  with  religion  in  one  hand  and  philan- 
thropy in  the  other,  and  followed  with  a  goodly 


7Q  WILLIAM  P1NKNEY. 

train  of  public  and  private  virtues,  you  may 
achieve  more  conquests  over  sovereignties  not 
your  own  than  falls  to  the  common  lot  of  even 
uncommon  ambition.  By  the  aid  of  such  a 
power,  skilfully  employed,  you  may  "  bridge 
your  way  "  over  the  Hellespont  that  separates 
State  legislation  from  that  of  Congress ;  and 
you  may  do  so  for  pretty  much  the  same  pur- 
pose with  which  Xerxes  once  bridged  his  way 
across  the  Hellespont  that  separates  Asia  from 
Europe.  He  did  so,  in  the  language  of  Milton, 
"  the  liberties  of  Greece  to  yoke."  You  may 
do  so  for  the  analogous  purpose  of  subjugating 
and  reducing  the  sovereignties  of  States,  as 
your  taste  or  convenience  may  suggest,  and 
fashioning  them  -to  your  imperial  will.  There 
are  those  in  this  House  who  appear  to  think, 
and  I  doubt  not  sincerely,  that  the  particular 
restraint  now  under  consideration  is  wise,  and 
benevolent,  and  good  ;  wise  as  respects  the 
Union — good  as  respects  Missouri — benevolent 
as  respects  the  unhappy  victims  whom  with  a 
novel  kindness  it  would  incarcerate  in  the  south, 
and  bless  by  decay  and  extirpation.  Let  all 
such  beware,  lest  in  their  desire  for  the  effect 
which  they  believe  the  restriction  will  produce, 
they  are  too  easily  satisfied  that  they  have  the 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  J\ 

right  to  impose  it.  The  moral  beauty  of  the 
present  purpose,  or  even  its  political  recom- 
mendations (whatever  they  may  be),  can  do 
nothing  for  a  power  like  this,  which  claims  to 
prescribe  conditions  ad  libitum,  and  to  be  com- 
petent to  this  purpose,  because  it  is  competent 
to  all.  This  restriction,  if  it  be  not  smothered 
in  its  birth,  will  be  but  a  small  part  of  the 
progeny  of  the  prolific  power.  It  teems  with 
a  mighty  brood,  of  which  this  may  be  entitled 
to  the  distinction  of  comeliness  as  well  as  of 
primogeniture.  The  rest  may  want  the  boasted 
loveliness  of  their  predecessor,  and  be  even 
uglier  than  "  Lapland  7  witches." 

*         *****         #8 

I  would  not  discourage  authorized  legislation 
upon  those  kindly,  generous,  and  noble  feelings 
which  Providence  has  given  to  us  for  the  best 
of  purposes ;  but  when  power  to  act  is  under 
discussion,  I  will  not  look  to  the  end  in  view, 
lest  I  should  become  indifferent  to  the  lawful- 
ness of  the  means.  Let  us  discard  from  this 
high  constitutional  question  all  those  extrinsic 
considerations  which  have  been  forced  into  its 
discussion.  Let  us  endeavor  to  approach  it 
with  a  philosophic  impartiality  of  temper — with 
a  sincere  desire  to  ascertain  the  boundaries  of 


72  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

our  authority,  and  a  determination  to  keep  our 
wishes  in  subjection  to  our  allegiance  to  the 
Constitution. 

Slavery,  we  are  told  in  many  a  pamphlet, 
memorial,  and  speech,  with  which  the  press 
has  lately  groaned,  is  a  foul  blot  upon  our 
otherwise  immaculate  reputation.  Let  this 
be  conceded — yet  you  are  no  nearer  than  be- 
fore to  the  conclusion  that  you  possess  power 
which  may  deal  with  other  subjects  as  effectu- 
ally as  with  this.  Slavery,  we  are  further  told, 
with  some  pomp  of  metaphor,  is  a  canker  at 
the  root  of  all  that  is  excellent  in  this  republi- 
can empire,  a  pestilent  disease  that  is  snatching 
the  youthful  bloom  from  its  cheek,  prostrating 
its  honor  and  withering  its  strength.  Be  it  so — 
yet  if  you  have  power  to  medicine  9  to  it  in  the 
way  proposed,  and  in  virtue  of  the  diploma 
which  you  claim,  you  have  also  power  in  the 
distribution  of  your  political  alexipharmics  to 
present  the  deadliest  drugs  to  every  territory 
that  would  become  a  State,  and  bid  it  drink  or 
remain  a  colony  forever.  Slavery,  we  are  also 
told,  is  now  "  rolling  onward  with  a  rapid  tide 
towards  the  boundless  regions  of  the  West," 
threatening  to  doom  them  to  sterility  and  sor- 
row, unless  some  potent  voice  can  say  to  it, 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  73 

thus  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  farther.  Slavery 
engenders  pride  and  indolence  in  him  who  com- 
mands, and  inflicts  intellectual  and  moral  deg- 
radation on  him  who  serves.  Slavery,  in  fine, 
is  unchristian  and  abominable.  Sir,  I  shall  not 
stop  to  deny  that  slavery  is  all  this  and  more  ; 
but  I  shall  not  think  myself  the  less  authorized 
to  deny  that  it  is  for  you  to  stay  the  course  of 
this  dark  torrent,  by  opposing  to  it  a  mound 
raised  up  by  the  labors  of  this  portentous  dis- 
cretion on  the  domain  of  others — a  mound  which 
you  cannot  erect  but  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  a  trespass  of  no  ordinary  kind — not  the 
comparatively  innocent  trespass  that  beats  down 
a  few  blades  of  grass  which  the  first  kind  sun  or 
the  next  refreshing  shower  may  cause  to  spring 
again — but  that  which  levels  with  the  ground 
the  lordliest  trees  of  the  forest,  and  claims  im- 
mortality for  the  destruction  which  it  inflicts. 

I  shall  not,  I  am  sure,  be  told  that  I  exagger- 
ate this  power.  It  has  been  admitted  here  and 
elsewhere  that  I  do  not.  But  I  want  no  such 
concession.  It  is  manifest  that  as  a  discretion- 
ary power  it  is  everything  or  nothing — that  its 
head  is  in  the  clouds,  or  that  it  is  a  mere  fig- 
ment of  enthusiastic  speculation — that  it  has  no 
existence,  or  that  it  is  an  alarming  vortex  ready 


74  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

to  swallow  up  all  such  portions  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  an  infant  State  as  you  may  think  fit 
to  cast  into  it  as  preparatory  to  the  introduction 
into  the  union  of  the  miserable  residue.  No 
man  can  contradict  me  when  I  say,  that  if  you 
have  this  power,  you  may  squeeze  down  a  new- 
born sovereign  State  to  the  size  of  a  pigmy,  and 
then  taking  it  between  finger  and  thumb,  stick 
it  into  some  niche  of  the  Union,  and  still  con- 
tinue by  way  of  mockery  to  call  it  a  State  in  the 
sense  of  the  Constitution.  You  may  waste  it  to 
a  shadow,  and  then  introduce  it  into  the  society 
of  flesh  and  blood  an  object  of  scorn  and  de- 
rision. You  may  sweat  and  reduce  it  to  a  thing 
of  skin  and  bone,  and  then  place  the  ominous 
skeleton  beside  the  ruddy  and  healthful  mem- 
bers of  the  Union,  that  it  may  have  leisure  to 
mourn  the  lamentable  difference  between  itself 
and  its  companions,  to  brood  over  its  disastrous 
promotion,  and  to  seek  in  justifiable  discontent 
an  opportunity  for  separation,  and  insurrection, 
and  rebellion.  What  may  you  not  do  by  dex- 
terity and  perseverance  with  this  terrific  power  ? 
You  may  give  to  a  new  State,  in  the  form  of 
terms  which  it  cannot  refuse,  (as  I  shall  show 
you  hereafter,)  a  statute  book  of  a  thousand 
volumes — providing  not  for  ordinary  cases  only, 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  75 

but  even  for  possibilities ;  you  may  lay  the  yoke, 
no  matter  whether  light  or  heavy,  upon  the 
necks  of  the  latest  posterity  ;  you  may  send 
this  searching  power  into  every  hamlet  for  cen- 
turies to  come,  by  laws  enacted  in  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  and  regulating  all  those  dear  rela- 
tions of  domestic  concern  which  belong  to  local 
legislation,  and  which  even  local  legislation 
touches  with  a  delicate  and  sparing  hand.  This 
is  the  first  inroad.  But  will  it  be  the  last  ?  This 
provision  is  but  a  pioneer  for  others  of  a  more 
desolating  aspect.  It  is  that  fatal  bridge  of 
which  Milton  speaks,  and  when  once  firmly 
built,  what  shall  hinder  you  to  pass  it  when 
you  please  for  the  purpose  of  plundering  power 
after  power  at  the  expense  of  new  States,  as 
you  will  still  continue  to  call  them,  and  raising 
up  prospective  codes  irrevocable  and  immortal, 
which  shall  leave  to  those  States  the  empty 
shadows  of  domestic  sovereignty,  and  convert 
them  into  petty  pageants,  in  themselves  con- 
temptible, but  rendered  infinitely  more  so  by 
the  contrast  of  their  humble  faculties  with  the 
proud  and  admitted  pretensions  of  those  who 
having  doomed  them  to  the  inferiority  of  vas- 
sals, have  condescended  to  take  them  into  their 
society  and  under  their  protection  ?  10 


76  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

"  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Con- 
gress into  this  Union.''  It  is  objected  that  the 
word  "  may  "  imports  power,  not  obligation — 
a  right  to  decide — a  discretion  to  grant  or  refuse. 

To  this  it  might  be  answered  that  power  is 
duty  on  many  occasions.  But  let  it  be  con- 
ceded that  it  is  discretionary.  What  conse- 
quence follows  ?  A  power  to  refuse,  in  a  case 
like  this,  does  not  necessarily  involve  a  power 
to  exact  terms.  You  must  look  to  the  result 
which  is  the  declared  object  of  the  power. 
Whether  you  will  arrive  at  it,  or  not,  may  de- 
pend on  your  will ;  but  you  cannot  compromise 
with  the  result  intended  and  professed. 

What  then  is  the  professed  result  ?  To  admit 
a  State  into  this  Union. 

What  is  that  Union?  A  confederation  of 
States  equal  in  sovereignty — capable  of  every- 
thing which  the  Constitution  does  not  forbid,  or 
authorize  Congress  to  forbid.  It  is  an  equal 
union,  between  parties  equally  sovereign.  They 
were  sovereign  independently  of  the  Union. 
The  object  of  the  Union  was  common  protec- 
tion for  the  exercise  of  already  existing  sover- 
eignty. The  parties  gave  up  a  portion  of  that 
sovereignty  to  insure  the  remainder.  As  far  as 
they  gave  it  up  by  the  common  compact  they 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  77 

have  ceased  to  be  sovereign.  The  Union  pro- 
vides the  means  of  defending  the  residue  ;  and 
it  is  into  that  Union  that  a  new  State  is  to 
come.  By  acceding  to  it,  the  new  State  is 
placed  on  the  same  footing  with  the  original 
States.  It  accedes  for  the  same  purpose,  i.  e., 
protection  for  their  unsurrendered  sovereignty. 
If  it  comes  in  shorn  of  its  beams — crippled  and 
disparaged  beyond  the  original  States,  it  is  not 
into  the  original  Union  that  it  comes.  For  it 
is  a  different  sort  of  Union.  The  first  was  Union 
inter  pares.  This  is  a  Union  between  "  dis- 
parates " — between  giants  and  a  dwarf — be- 
tween power  and  feebleness — between  full  pro- 
portioned sovereignties  and  a  miserable  image 
of  power — a  thing  which  that  very  Union  has 
shrunk  and  shrivelled  from  its  just  size,  instead 
of  preserving  it  in  its  true  dimensions. 

It  is  into  this  Union,  i.  e.,  the  Union  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  that  you  are  to  admit,  or 
refuse  to  admit.  You  can  admit  into  no  other. 
You  cannot  make  the  Union,  as  to  the  new 
State,  what  it  is  not  as  to  the  old  ;  for  then  it  is 
not  this  Union  that  you  open  for  the  entrance 
of  a  new  party.  If  you  make  it  enter  into  a 
new  and  additional  compact,  is  it  any  longer 
the  same  Union  ?  " 


78  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

We  are  told  that  admitting  a  State  into  the 
Union  is  a  compact.  Yes,  but  what  sort  of  a 
compact?  A  compact  that  it  shall  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union,  as  the  Constitution  has  made 
it.  You  cannot  new  fashion  it.  You  may 
make  a  compact  to  admit,  but  when  admitted 
the  original  compact  prevails.  The  Union  is  a 
compact,  with  a  provision  of  political  power  and 
agents  for  the  accomplishment  of  its  objects. 
Vary  that  compact  as  to  a  new  State — give 
new  energy  to  that  political  power  so  as  to 
make  it  act  with  more  force  upon  a  new  State 
than  upon  the  old — make  the  will  of  those 
agents  more  effectually  the  arbiter  of  the  fate 
of  a  new  State  than  of  the  old,  and  it  may  be 
confidently  said  that  the  new  State  has  not  en- 
tered into  this  Union,  but  into  another  Union. 
How  far  the  Union  has  been  varied  is  another 
question.  But  that  it  has  been  varied  is  clear. 

If  I  am  told  that  by  the  bill  relative  to  Mis- 
souri, you  do  not  legislate  upon  a  new  State,  I 
answer  that  you  do  ;  and  I  answer  further  that 
it  is  immaterial  whether  you  do  or  not.  But  it 
is  upon  Missouri,  as  a  State,  that  your  terms 
and  conditions  are  to  act.  Until  Missouri  is  a 
State,  the  terms  and  conditions  are  nothing. 
You  legislate  in  the  shape  of  terms  and  condi- 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  79 

tions,  prospectively — and  you  so  legislate  upon 
it  that  when  it  comes  into  the  Union  it  is  to  be 
bound  by  a  contract  degrading  and  diminish- 
ing its  sovereignty — and  is  to  be  stripped  of 
rights  which  the  original  parties  to  the  Union 
did  not  consent  to  abandon,  and  which  that 
Union  (so  far  as  depends  upon  it)  takes  under 
its  protection  and  guarantee. 

Is  the  right  to  hold  slaves  a  right  which 
Massachusetts  enjoys  ?  If  it  is,  Massachusetts 
is  under  this  Union  in  a  different  character 
from  Missouri.  The  compact  of  Union  for  it, 
is  different  from  the  same  compact  of  Union 
for  Missouri.  The  power  of  Congress  is  dif- 
ferent— everything  which  depends  upon  the 
Union  is,  in  that  respect,  different. 

But  it  is  immaterial  whether  you  legislate  for 
Missouri  as  a  State  or  n^t.  The  effect  of  your 
legislation  is  to  bring  it  into  the  Union  with  a 
portion  of  its  sovereignty  taken  away. 

But  it  is  a  State  which  you  are  to  admit. 
What  is  a  State  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution  ? 
It  is  not  a  State  in  the  general— but  a  State  as 
you  find  it  in  the  Constitution.  A  State,  gen- 
erally, is  a  body  politic  or  independent  politi- 
cal society  of  men.  But  the  State  which  you 
are  to  admit  must  be  more  or  less  than  this 


80  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

political  entity.  What  must  it  be  ?  Ask  the 
constitution.  It  shows  what  it  means  by  a 
State  by  reference  to  the  parties  to  it.  It  must 
be  such  a  State  as  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  and 
the  other  members  of  the  American  confeder- 
acy— a  State  with  full  sovereignty  except  as 
the  constitution  restricts  it. 

*         *         *         *         #         #         *n 

In  a  word,  the  whole  amount  of  the  argu- 
ment on  the  other  side  is,  that  you  may  refuse 
to  admit  a  new  State,  and  that  therefore  if  you 
admit,  you  may  prescribe  the  terms. 

The  answer  to  that  argument  is — that  even 
if  you  can  refuse,  you  can  prescribe  no  terms 
which  are  inconsistent  with  the  act  you  are  to 
do.  You  can  prescribe  no  conditions  which,  if 
carried  into  effect,  would  make  the  new  State 
less  a  sovereign  State  than,  under  the  Union  as 
it  stands,  it  would  be.  You  can  prescribe  no 
terms  which  will  make  the  compact  of  Union 
between  it  and  the  original  States  essentially 
different  from  that  compact  among  the  original 
States.  You  may  admit,  or  refuse  to  admit: 
but  if  you  admit,  you  must  admit  a  State  in 
the  sense  of  the  Constitution — a  State  with  all 
such  sovereignty  as  belongs  to  the  original 
parties :  and  it  must  be  into  this  Union  that 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  8 1 

you  are  to  admit  it,  not  into  a  Union  of  your 
own  dictating,  formed  out  of  the  existing  Union 
by  qualifications  and  new  compacts,  altering  its 
character  and  effect,  and  making  it  fall  short  of 
its  protecting  energy  in  reference  to  the  new 
State,  whilst  it  acquires  an  energy  of  another 
sort — the  energy  of  restraint  and  destruction. 

*  •*  #  #  -X-  *  #13 

One  of  the  most  signal  errors  with  which  the 
argument  on  the  other  side  has  abounded,  is 
this  of  considering  the  proposed  restriction  as 
if  levelled  at  the  introduction  or  establishment 
of  slavery.  And  hence  the  vehement  declama- 
tion, which,  among  other  things,  has  informed 
us  that  slavery  originated  in  fraud  or  violence. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  restriction  has  no  rela- 
tion, real  or  pretended,  to  the  right  of  making 
slaves  of  those  who  are  free,  or  of  introducing 
slavery  where  it  does  not  already  exist.  It  ap- 
plies to  those  who  are  admitted  to  be  already 
slaves,  and  who  (with  their  posterity)  would 
continue  to  be  slaves  if  they  should  remain 
where  they  are  at  present;  and  to  a  place 
where  slavery  already  exists  by  the  local  law. 
Their  civil  condition  will  not  be  altered  by  their 
removal  from  Virginia,  or  Carolina,  to  Missouri. 
They  will  not  be  more  slaves  than  they  now 

VOL.  II.— 6 


82  WILLIAM  PINKNE  Y. 

are.  Their  abode,  indeed,  will  be  different,  but 
their  bondage  the  same.  Their  numbers  may 
possibly  be  augmented  by  the  diffusion,  and  I 
think  they  will.  But  this  can  only  happen  be- 
cause their  hardships  will  be  mitigated,  and 
their  comforts  increased.  The  checks  to  popu- 
lation, which  exist  in  the  older  States,  will 
be  diminished.  The  restriction,  therefore  does 
not  prevent  the  establishment  of  slavery,  either 
with  reference  to  persons  or  place  ;  but  simply 
inhibits  the  removal  from  place  to  place  (the 
law  in  each  being  the  same)  of  a  slave,  or  make 
his  emancipation  the  consequence  of  that  re- 
moval. It  acts  professedly  merely  on  slavery 
as  it  exists,  and  thus  acting  restrains  its  present 
lawful  effects.  That  slavery,  like  many  other 
human  institutions,  originated  in  fraud  or  vio- 
lence, may  be  conceded  :  but,  however  it  origi- 
nated, it  is  established  among  us,  and  no  man 
seeks  a  further  establishment  of  it  by  new 
importations  of  freemen  to  be  converted  into 
slaves.  On  the  contrary,  all  are  anxious  to 
mitigate  its  evils,  by  all  the  means  within  the 
reach  of  the  appropriate  authority,  the  domestic 
legislatures  of  the  different  States. 

*         *         #         #         *         *         #i« 
Of  the  declaration  of  our  independence,  which 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  83 

has  also  been  quoted  in  support  of  the  perilous 
doctrines  now  urged  upon  us,  I  need  not  now 
speak  at  large.  I  have  shown  on  a  former  oc- 
casion how  idle  it  is  to  rely  upon  that  instru- 
ment for  such  a  purpose,  and  I  will  not  fatigue 
you  by  mere  repetition.  The  self-evident  truths 
announced  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
are  not  truths  at  all,  if  taken  literally  ;  and  the 
practical  conclusions  contained  in  the  same 
passage  of  that  declaration  prove  that  they 
were  never  designed  to  be  so  received. 

The  articles  of  confederation  contain  nothing 
on  the  subject ;  whilst  the  actual  Constitution 
recognizes  the  legal  existence  of  slavery  by 
various  provisions.  The  power  of  prohibiting 
the  slave  trade  is  involved  in  that  of  regulating 
commerce,  but  this  is  coupled  with  an  express 
inhibition  to  the  exercise  of  it  for  twenty  years. 
How  then  can  that  Constitution  which  expressly 
permits  the  importation  of  slaves  authorize  the 
National  Government  to  set  on  foot  a  crusade 
against  slavery  ? 

The  clause  respecting  fugitive  slaves  is 
affirmative  and  active  in  its  effects.  It  is  a 
direct  sanction  and  positive  protection  of  the 
right  of  the  master  to  the  services  of  his  slave 
as  derived  under  the  local  laws  of  the  States. 


84  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

The  phraseology  in  which  it  is  wrapped  up 
still  leaves  the  intention  clear,  and  the  words, 
"  persons  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State 
under  the  laws  thereof,"  have  always  been  in- 
terpreted to  extend  to  the  case  of  slaves,  in  the 
various  acts  of  Congress  which  have  been  passed 
to  give  efficacy  to  the  provision,  and  in  the 
judicial  application  of  those  laws.  So  also  in 
the  clause  prescribing  the  ratio  of  representa- 
tion— the  phrase,  "  three-fifths  of  all  other  per- 
sons," is  equivalent  to  slaves,  or  it  means 
nothing.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  those  who 
are  acting  under  a  Constitution  which  sanctions 
the  existence  of  slavery  in  those  States  which 
choose  to  tolerate  it,  are  at  liberty  to  hold  that 
no  law  can  sanction  its  existence." 

It  is  idle  to  make  the  rightfulness  of  an  act 
the  measure  of  sovereign  power.  The  distinc- 
tion between  sovereign  power  and  the  moral 
right  to  exercise  it  has  always  been  recognized. 
All  political  power  may  be  abused,  but  is  it  to 
stop  where  abuse  may  begin  ?  The  power  of 
declaring  war  is  a  power  of  vast  capacity  for 
mischief,  and  capable  of  inflicting  the  most 
wide-spread  desolation.  But  it  is  given  to 
Congress  without  stint  and  without  measure. 
Is  a  citizen,  or  are  the  courts  of  justice  to  in- 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  85 

quire  whether  that,  or  any  other  law,  is  just, 
before  they  obey  or  execute  it  ?  And  are  there 
any  degrees  of  injustice  which  will  withdraw 
from  sovereign  power  the  capacity  of  making  a 
given  law? 

•£  *  •*  *  *  *  #16 

The  power  is  "  to  admit  new  States  into  this 
Union,"  and  it  may  be  safely  conceded  that 
here  is  discretion  to  admit  or  refuse.  The 
question  is,  what  must  we  do  if  we  do  any- 
thing? What  must  we  admit,  and  into  what  ? 
The  answer  is  a  State — and  into  this  Union. 

The  distinction  between  Federal  rights  and 
local  rights,  is  an  idle  distinction.  Because  the 
new  State  acquires  Federal  rights,  it  is  not, 
therefore,  in  this  Union.  The  Union  is  a  com- 
pact ;  and  is  it  an  equal  party  to  that  compact, 
because  it  has  equal  Federal  rights  ? 

How  is  the  Union  formed?  By  equal  con- 
tributions of  power.  Make  one  member  sacri- 
fice more  than  another,  and  it  becomes  unequal. 
The  compact  is  of  two  parts : 

1.  The  thing  obtained — Federal  rights. 

2.  The  price  paid — local  sovereignty. 

You  may  disturb  the  balance  of  the  Union, 
either  by  diminishing  the  thing  acquired,  or 
increasing  the  sacrifice  paid. 


86  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

What  were  the  purposes  of  coming  into  the 
Union  among  the  original  States  ?  The  States 
were  originally  sovereign  without  limit,  as  to 
foreign  and  domestic  concerns.  But  being  in- 
capable of  protecting  themselves  singly,  they 
entered  into  the  Union  to  defend  themselves 
against  foreign  violence.  The  domestic  con- 
cerns of  the  people  were  not,  in  general,  to  be 
acted  on  by  it.  The  security  of  the  power,  of 
managing  them  by  domestic  legislature,  is  one 
of  the  great  objects  of  the  Union.  The  Union 
is  a  means,  not  an  end.  By  requiring  greater 
sacrifices  of  domestic  power,  the  end  is  sacri- 
ficed to  the  means.  Suppose  the  surrender  of 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  domestic  powers  of  legis- 
lation were  required ;  the  means  would  there 
have  swallowed  up  the  end. 

The  argument  that  the  compact  may  be 
enforced,  shows  that  the  Federal  predicament 
changed.  The  power  of  the  Union  not  only 
acts  on  persons  or  citizens,  but  on  the  faculty 
of  the  government,  and  restrains  it  in  a  way 
which  the  Constitution  nowhere  authorizes. 
This  new  obligation  takes  away  a  right  which 
is  expressly  "  reserved  to  the  people  or  the 
States,"  since  it  is  nowhere  granted  to  the 
government  of  the  Union.  You  cannot  do 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  8? 

indirectly  what  you  cannot  do  directly.  It  is 
said  that  this  Union  is  competent  to  make 
compacts.  Who  doubts  it  ?  But  can  you 
make  this  compact  ?  I  insist  that  you  cannot 
make  it,  because  it  is  repugnant  to  the  thing  to 
be  done. 

The  effect  of  such  a  compact  would  be  to 
produce  that  inequality  in  the  Union,  to  which 
the  Constitution,  in  all  its  provisions,  is  adverse. 
Everything  in  it  looks  to  equality  among  the 
members  of  the  Union.  Under  it  you  cannot 
produce  inequality.  Nor  can  you  get  before- 
hand of  the  Constitution,  and  do  it  by  antici- 
pation. Wait  until  a  State  is  in  the  Union, 
and  you  cannot  do  it ;  yet  it  is  only  upon  the 
State  in  the  Union  that  what  you  do  begins 
to  act. 

But  it  seems  that,  although  the  proposed 
restrictions  may  not  be  justified  by  the  clause 
of  the  Constitution  which  gives  power  to 
admit  new  States  into  the  Union,  separately 
considered,  there  are  other  parts  of  the  Consti- 
tution which,  combined  with  that  clause,  will 
warrant  it.  And  first,  we  are  informed  that 
there  is  a  clause  in  this  instrument  which  de- 
clares that  Congress  shall  guarantee  to  every 
State  a  republican  form  of  government ;  that 


88  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

slavery  and  such  a  form  of  government  are  in- 
compatible ;  and,  finally,  as  a  conclusion  from 
these  premises,  that  Congress  not  only  have  a 
right,  but  are  bound  to  exclude  slavery  from  a 
new  State.  Here  again,  sir,  there  is  an  edify- 
ing inconsistency  between  the  argument  and 
the  measure  which  it  professes  to  vindicate. 
By  the  argument  it  is  maintained  that  Mis- 
souri cannot  have  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  at  the  same  time  tolerate  negro 
slavery.  By  the  measure  it  is  admitted  that 
Missouri  may  tolerate  slavery,  as  to  persons 
already  in  bondage  there,  and  be  nevertheless 
fit  to  be  received  into  the  Union.  What  sort 
of  constitutional  mandate  is  this  which  can 
thus  be  made  to  bend  and  truckle  and  com- 
promise as  if  it  were  a  simple  rule  of  expe- 
diency that  might  admit  of  exceptions  upon 
motives  of  countervailing  expediency.  There 
can  be  no  such  pliancy  in  the  peremptory  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution.  They  cannot  be 
obeyed  by  moieties  and  violated  in  the  same 
ratio.  They  must  be  followed  out  to  their  full 
extent,  or  treated  with  that  decent  neglect 
which  has  at  least  the  merit  of  forbearing  to 
render  contumacy  obtrusive  by  an  ostentatious 
display  of  the  very  duty  which  we  in  part 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  89 

abandon.  If  the  decalogue  could  be  observed 
in  this  casuistical  manner,  we  might  be  grievous 
sinners,  and  yet  be  liable  to  no  reproach.  We 
might  persist  in  all  our  habitual  irregularities, 
and  still  be  spotless.  We  might,  for  example, 
continue  to  covet  our  neighbors'  goods,  pro- 
vided they  were  the  same  neighbors  whose 
goods  we  had  before  coveted — and  so  of  all 
the  other  commandments. 

Will  the  gentlemen  tell  us  that  it  is  the 
quantity  of  slaves,  not  the  quality  of  slavery, 
which  takes  from  a  government  the  republican 
form  ?  Will  they  tell  us  (for  they  have  not  yet 
told  us)  that  there  are  constitutional  grounds 
(to  say  nothing  of  common  sense)  upon  which 
the  slavery  which  now  exists  in  Missouri  may 
be  reconciled  with  a  republican  form  of  gov- 
ernment, while  any  addition  to  the  number  of 
its  slaves  (the  quality  of  slavery  remaining  the 
same)  from  the  other  States,  will  be  repugnant 
to  that  form,  and  metamorphose  it  into  some 
nondescript  government  disowned  by  the  Con- 
stitution ?  They  cannot  have  recourse  to  the 
treaty  of  1803  f°r  such  a  distinction,  since  in- 
dependently of  what  I  have  before  observed  on 
that  head,  the  gentlemen  have  contended  that 
the  treaty  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter. 


90  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

They  have  cut  themselves  off  from  all  chance 
of  a  convenient  distinction  in  or  out  of  that 
treaty,  by  insisting  that  slavery  beyond  the  old 
United  States  is  rejected  by  the  Constitution, 
and  by  the  law  of  God  as  discoverable  by  the 
aid  of  either  reason  or  revelation  ;  and  more- 
over that  the  treaty  does  not  include  the  case, 
and  if  it  did  could  not  make  it  better.  They 
have,  therefore,  completely  discredited  their 
own  theory  by  their  own  practice,  and  left  us 
no  theory  worthy  of  being  seriously  contro- 
verted. This  peculiarity  in  reasoning  of  giving 
out  a  universal  principle,  and  coupling  with  it 
a  practical  concession  that  it  is  wholly  fal- 
lacious, has  indeed  run  through  the  greater 
part  of  the  arguments  on  the  other  side  ;  but  it 
is  not,  as  I  think,  the  more  imposing  on  that 
account,  or  the  less  liable  to  the  criticism  which 
I  have  here  bestowed  upon  it. 

%  %  *  *  #•  #  #i« 
But  let  us  proceed  to  take  a  rapid  glance  at 
the  reasons  which  have  been  assigned  for  this 
notion  that  involuntary  servitude  and  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government  are  perfect  anti- 
pathies. The  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire 
has  defined  a  republican  government  to  be 
that  in  which  all  the  men  participate  in  its 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  91 

power  and  privileges ;  from  whence  it  follows 
that  where  there  are  slaves,  it  can  have  no 
existence.  A  definition  is  no  proof,  however, 
and  even  if  it  be  dignified  (as  I  think  it  was) 
with  the  name  of  a  maxim,  the  matter  is  not 
much  mended.  It  is  Lord  Bacon  who  says 
"  That  nothing  is  so  easily  made  as  a  maxim  "  ; 
and  certainly  a  definition  is  manufactured  with 
equal  facility.  A  political  maxim  is  the  work 
of  induction,  and  cannot  stand  against  experi- 
ence, or  stand  on  anything  but  experience. 
But  this  maxim,  or  definition,  or  whatever 
else  it  may  be,  sets  facts  at  defiance.  If  you 
go  back  to  antiquity,  you  will  obtain  no 
countenance  for  this  hypothesis  ;  and  if  you 
look  at  home  you  will  gain  still  less.  I  have 
read  that  Sparta,  and  Rome,  and  Athens,  and 
many  others  of  the  ancient  family,  were  re- 
publics. They  were  so  in  form  undoubtedly — 
the  last  approaching  nearer  to  a  perfect  de- 
mocracy than  any  other  government  which 
has  yet  been  known  in  the  world.  Judging  of 
them  also  by  their  fruits,  they  were  of  the  high- 
est order  of  republics.  Sparta  could  scarcely 
be  any  other  than  a  republic,  when  a  Spartan 
matron  could  say  to  her  son  just  marching  to 
battle,  "  Return  victorious,  or  return  no  more." 


92  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

It  was  the  unconquerable  spirit  of  liberty,  nur- 
tured by  republican  habits  and  institutions, 
that  illustrated  the  pass  of  Thermopylae.  Yet 
slavery  was  not  only  tolerated  in  Sparta,  but 
was  established  by  one  of  the  fundamental  laws 
of  Lycurgus,  having  for  its  object  the  encour- 
agement of  that  very  spirit.  Attica  was  full  of 
slaves — yet  the  love  of  liberty  was  its  character- 
istic. What  else  was  it  that  foiled  the  whole 
power  of  Persia  at  Marathon  and  Salamis? 
What  other  soil  than  that  which  the  genial  sun 
of  republican  freedom  illuminated  and  warmed, 
could  have  produced  such  men  as  Leonidas  and 
Miltiades,  Themistocles  and  Epaminondas?  Of 
Rome  it  would  be  superfluous  to  speak  at  large. 
It  is  sufficient  to  name  the  mighty  mistress  of 
the  world,  before  Sylla  gave  the  first  stab  to 
her  liberties  and  the  great  dictator  accom- 
plished their  final  ruin,  to  be  reminded  of  the 
practicability  of  union  between  civil  slavery 
and  an  ardent  love  of  liberty  cherished  by 
republican  establishments. 

If  we  return  home  for  instruction  upon  this 
point,  we  perceive  that  same  union  exemplified 
in  many  a  State,  in  which  "  Liberty  has  a  temple 
in  every  house,  an  altar  in  every  heart,"  while 
involuntary  servitude  is  seen  in  every  direction* 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  93 

Is  it  denied  that  those  States  possess  a  republi- 
can form  of  government  ?  If  it  is,  why  does 
our  power  of  correction  sleep  ?  Why  is  the 
constitutional  guaranty  suffered  to  be  inactive  ? 
Why  am  I  permitted  to  fatigue  you,  as  the  re- 
presentative of  a  slaveholding  State,  with  the 
discussion  of  the  "  nugae  canorae  "  (for  so  I 
think  them)  that  have  been  forced  into  this 
debate  contrary  to  all  the  remonstrances  of 
taste  and  prudence  ?  Do  gentlemen  perceive 
the  consequences  to  which  their  arguments 
must  lead  if  they  are  of  any  value  ?  Do  they 
reflect  that  they  lead  to  emancipation  in  the 
old  United  States — or  to  an  exclusion  of  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  and  all  the  South,  and  a  great 
portion  of  the  West  from  the  Union  ?  My 
honorable  friend  from  Virginia  has  no  business 
here,  if  this  disorganizing  creed  be  anything 
but  the  production  of  a  heated  brain.  The 
State  to  which  I  belong,  must  "  perform  a  lus- 
tration " — must  purge  and  purify  herself  from 
the  feculence  of  civil  slavery,  and  emulate  the 
States  of  the  North  in  their  zeal  for  throwing 
down  the  gloomy  idol  which  we  are  said  to 
worship,  before  her  senators  can  have  any  title 
to  appear  in  this  high  assembly.  It  will  be  in 
vain  to  urge  that  the  old  United  States  are  ex- 


94  WILLIAM   PINKNEY. 

ceptions  to  the  rule — or  rather  (as  the  gentle- 
men express  it),  that  they  have  no  disposition 
to  apply  the  rule  to  them.  There  can  be  no 
exceptions  by  implication  only,  to  such  a  rule ; 
and  expressions  which  justify  the  exemption  of 
the  old  States  by  inference,  will  justify  the  like 
exemption  of  Missouri,  unless  they  point  ex- 
clusively to  them,  as  I  have  shown  they  do  not. 
The  guarded  manner,  too,  in  which  some  of 
the  gentlemen  have  occasionally  expressed 
themselves  on  this  subject,  is  somewhat  alarm- 
ing. They  have  no  disposition  to  meddle  with 
slavery  in  the  old  United  States.  Perhaps  not 
— but  who  shall  answer  for  their  successors  ? 
Who  shall  furnish  a  pledge  that  the  principle 
once  ingrafted  into  the  Constitution,  will  not 
grow,  and  spread,  and  fructify,  and  overshadow 
the  whole  land  ?  It  is  the  natural  office  of  such 
a  principle  to  wrestle  with  slavery,  wheresoever 
it  finds  it.  New  States,  colonized  by  the  apos- 
tles of  this  principle,  will  enable  it  to  set  on 
foot  a  fanatical  crusade  against  all  who  still 
continue  to  tolerate  it,  although  no  practica- 
ble means  are  pointed  out  by  which  they  can 
get  rid  of  it  consistently  with  their  own  safety. 
At  any  rate,  a  present  forbearing  disposition,  in 
a  few  or  in  many,  is  not  a  security  upon  which 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  95 

much  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  a  subject  as 
to  which  so  many  selfish  interests  and  ardent 
feelings  are  connected  with  the  cold  calcula- 
tions of  policy.  Admitting,  however,  that  the 
old  United  States  are  in  no  danger  from  this 
principle — why  is  it  so  ?  There  can  be  no 
other  answer  (which  these  zealous  enemies  of 
slavery  can  use)  than  that  the  Constitution 
recognizes  slavery  as  existing  or  capable  of  ex- 
isting in  those  States.  The  Constitution,  then, 
admits  that  slavery  and  a  republican  form  of 
government  are  not  incongruous.  It  associates 
and  binds  them  up  together  and  repudiates  this 
wild  imagination  which  the  gentlemen  have 
pressed  upon  us  with  such  an  air  of  triumph. 
But  the  Constitution  does  more,  as  I  have  here- 
tofore proved.  It  concedes  that  slavery  may 
exist  in  a  new  State,  as  well  as  in  an  old  one — 
since  the  language  in  which  it  recognizes  slavery 
comprehends  new  States  as  well  as  actual.  I 
trust  then  that  I  shall  be  forgiven  if  I  suggest, 
that  no  eccentricity  in  argument  can  be  more 
trying  to  human  patience,  than  a  formal  asser- 
tion that  a  constitution,  to  which  slave-holding 
States  were  the  most  numerous  parties,  in 
which  slaves  are  treated  as  property  as  well  as 
persons,  and  provision  is  made  for  the  security 


g6  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

of  that  property,  and  even  for  an  augmentation 
of  it  by  a  temporary  importation  from  Africa, 
with  a  clause  commanding  Congress  to  guar- 
antee a  republican  form  of  government  to  those 
very  States,  as  well  as  to  others,  authorizes  you 
to  determine  that  slavery  and  a  republican  form 
of  government  cannot  coexist. 

But  if  a  republican  form  of  government  is 
that  in  which  all  the  men  have  a  share  in  the 
public  power,  the  slave-holding  States  will  not 
alone  retire  from  the  Union.  The  constitu- 
tions of  some  of  the  other  States  do  not  sanc- 
tion universal  suffrage,  or  universal  eligibility. 
They  require  citizenship,  and  age,  and  a  certain 
amount  of  property,  to  give  a  title  to  vote  or 
to  be  voted  for  ;  and  they  who  have  not  those 
qualifications  are  just  as  much  disfranchised, 
with  regard  to  the  government  and  its  power, 
as  if  they  were  slaves.  They  have  civil  rights 
indeed  (and  so  have  slaves  in  a  less  degree ; ) 
but  they  have  no  share  in  the  government. 
Their  province  is  to  obey  the  laws,  not  to  assist 
in  making  them.  All  such  States  must  there- 
fore be  forisfamiliated  with  Virginia  and  the 
rest,  or  change  tneir  system.  For  the  Consti- 
tution being  absolutely  silent  on  those  subjects, 
will  afford  them  no  protection.  The  Union 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  97 

might  thus  be  reduced  from  an  Union  to  an 
unit.  Who  does  not  see  that  such  conclusions 
flow  from  false  notions — that  the  true  theory 
of  a  republican  government  is  mistaken — and 
that  in  such  a  government  rights,  political  and 
civil,  may  be  qualified  by  the  fundamental  law, 
upon  such  inducements  as  the  freemen  of  the 
country  deem  sufficient  ?  That  civil  rights 
may  be  qualified  as  well  as  political,  is  proved 
by  a  thousand  examples.  Minors,  resident 
aliens,  who  are  in  a  course  of  naturalization — 
the  other  sex,  whether  maids,  or  wives,  or 
widows,  furnish  sufficient  practical  proofs  of 
this. 

#  #  *  #  #  #  *" 

We  are  next  invited  to  study  that  clause  of 
the  Constitution  which  relates  to  the  migration 
or  importation,  before  the  year  1808,  of  such 
persons  as  any  of  the  States  then  existing 
should  think  proper  to  admit.  It  runs  thus : 
"  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons 
as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think 
proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Congress  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  eight,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be 
imposed  on  such  importation  not  exceeding 
ten  dollars  for  each  person." 

VOL.  II. — 7 


98  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

It  is  said  that  this  clause  empowers  Congress, 
after  the  year  1808,  to  prohibit  the  passage  of 
slaves  from  State  to  State,  and  the  word  "  mi- 
gration "  is  relied  upon  for  that  purpose. 

*  #  **  #  *  #18 

Whatever  may  be  the  latitude  in  which  the 
word  "  persons  "  is  capable  of  being  received,  it 
is  not  denied  that  the  word  "  importation  "  in- 
dicates a  bringing  in  from  a  jurisdiction  foreign 
to  the  United  States.  The  two  termini  of 
the  importation,  here  spoken  of,  are  a  foreign 
country  and  the  American  Union — the  first  the 
terminus  a  quo,  the  second  the  terminus  ad 
quern.  The  word  migration  stands  in  simple 
connexion  with  it,  and  of  course  is  left  to  the 
full  influence  of  that  connection.  The  natural 
conclusion  is,  that  the  same  termini  belong 
to  each,  or,  in  other  words,  that  if  the  importa- 
tion must  be  abroad,  so  also  must  be  the  mi- 
gration— no  other  termini  being  assigned  to 
the  one  which  are  not  manifestly  characteristic 
of  the  other.  This  conclusion  is  so  obvious, 
that  to  repel  it,  the  word  migration  requires,  as 
an  appendage,  explanatory  phraseology,  giving 
to  it  a  different  beginning  from  that  of  importa- 
tion. To  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  mean  a  removal  from  State  to  State, 


ON   THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.  99 

each  within  the  sphere  of  the  constitution  in 
which  it  is  used,  the  addition  of  the  words  from 
one  to  another  State  in  this  Union,  were  indis- 
pensable. By  the  omission  of  these  words,  the 
word  "  migration  "  is  compelled  to  take  every 
sense  of  which  it  is  fairly  susceptible  from  its 
immediate  neighbor,  "  importation."  In  this 
view  it  means  a  coming,  as  "  importation"  means 
a  bringing,  from  a  foreign  jurisdiction  into  the 
United  States.  That  it  is  susceptible  of  this 
meaning,  nobody  doubts.  1  go  further.  It  can 
have  no  other  meaning  in  the  place  in  which  it 
is  found.  It  is  found  in  the  Constitution  of  this 
Union — which,  when  it  speaks  of  migration  as 
of  a  general  concern,  must  be  supposed  to  have 
in  view  a  migration  into  the  domain  which 
itself  embraces  as  a  general  government. 

Migration,  then,  even  if  it  comprehends 
slaves,  does  not  mean  the  removal  of  them  from 
State  to  State,  but  means  the  coming  of  slaves 
from  places  beyond  their  limits  and  their 
power.  And  if  this  be  so,  the  gentlemen  gain 
nothing  for  their  argument  by  showing  that 
slaves  were  the  objects  of  this  term. 

An  honorable  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island,1* 
whose  speech  was  distinguished  for  its  ability, 
and  for  an  admirable  force  of  reasoning,  as  well 


100  WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

as  by  the  moderation  and  mildness  of  its  spirit, 
informed  us,  with  less  discretion  than  in  general 
he  exhibited,  that  the  word  "  migration  "  was 
introduced  into  this  clause  at  the  instance  of 
some  of  the  Southern  States,  who  wished  by  its 
instrumentality  to  guard  against  a  prohibition 
by  Congress  of  the  passage  into  those  States  of 
slaves  from  other  States.  He  has  given  us  no 
authority  for  this  supposition,  and  it  is,  there- 
fore, a  gratuitous  one.  How  improbable  it  is, 
a  moment's  reflection  will  convince  him.  The 
African  slave  trade  being  open  during  the 
whole  of  the  time  to  which  the  entire  clause  in 
question  referred,  such  a  purpose  could  scarcely 
be  entertained ;  but  if  it  had  been  entertained, 
and  there  was  believed  to  be  a  necessity  for 
securing  it,  by  a  restriction  upon  the  power  of 
Congress  to  interfere  with  it,  is  it  possible  that 
they  who  deemed  it  important,  would  have 
contented  themselves  with  a  vague  restraint, 
which  was  calculated  to  operate  in  almost  any 
other  manner  than  that  which  they  desired  ? 
If  fear  and  jealousy,  such  as  the  honorable 
gentleman  has  described,  had  dictated  this 
provision,  a  better  term  than  that  of  "  migra- 
tion," simple  and  unqualified,  and  joined,  too, 
with  the  word  "  importation,"  would  have 


ON  THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION.          IOI 

been  found  to  tranquilize  those  fears  and 
satisfy  that  jealousy.  Fear  and  jealousy  are 
watchful,  and  are  rarely  seen  to  accept  a 
security  short  of  their  object,  and  less  rarely 
to  shape  that  security,  of  their  own  accord,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  it  no  security  at  all. 
They  always  seek  an  explicit  guaranty ;  and 
that  this  is  not  such  a  guaranty  this  debate 
has  proved,  if  it  has  proved  nothing  else.90 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS,* 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS.1 

(BORN    l8ll,    DIED    1884.) 


ON    THE    MURDER    OF    LOVEJOY  ;      FANEUIL     HALL, 
BOSTON,  DECEMBER   8,   1837." 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  : 

We  have  met  for  the  freest  discussion  of 
these  resolutions,  and  the  events  which  gave  rise 
to  them.  [Cries  of  "Question,"  "  Hear  him," 
"  Go  on,"  u  No  gagging,"  etc.]  I  hope  I  shall 
be  permitted  to  express  my  surprise  at  the 
sentiments  of  the  last  speaker,  surprise  not  only 
at  such  sentiments  from  such  a  man,  but  at  the 
applause  they  have  received  within  these  walls. 
A  comparison  has  been  drawn  between  the 
events  of  the  Revolution  and  the  tragedy  at 
Alton.  We  have  heard  it  asserted  here,  in 
Faneuil  Hall,  that  Great  Britain  had  a  right  to 
tax  the  colonies,  and  we  have  heard  the  mob  at 
Alton,  the  drunken  murderers  of  Lovejoy,  com- 
pared to  those  patriot  fathers  who  threw  the 

*  For  notes  on  Phillips,  see  Appendix,  p.  366 
102 


THE  MURDER   OF  LOVEJOY.  1 03 

tea  overboard  !  Fellow  citizens,  is  this  Faneuil 
Hall  doctrine?  ["  No,  no."]  The  mob  at  Al- 
ton were  met  to  wrest  from  a  citizen  his  just 
rights — met  to  resist  the  laws.  We  have  been 
told  that  our  fathers  did  the  same ;  and  the 
glorious  mantle  of  Revolutionary  precedent  has 
been  thrown  over  the  mobs  of  our  day.  To 
make  out  their  title  to  such  defence,  the  gentle- 
man says  that  the  British  Parliament  had  a  right 
to  tax  these  colonies.  It  is  manifest  that,  without 
this,  his  parallel  falls  to  the  ground,  for  Lovejoy 
had  stationed  himself  within  constitutional  bul- 
warks. He  was  not  only  defending  the  free- 
dom of  the  press,  but  he  was  under  his  own 
roof,  in  arms  with  the  sanction  of  the  civil  au- 
thority.1 The  men  who  assailed  him  went 
against  and  over  the  laws.  The  mob,  as  the 
gentleman  terms  it — mob,  forsooth !  certainly 
we  sons  of  the  tea-spillers  are  a  marvellously 
patient  generation  ! — the  "  orderly  mob  "  which 
assembled  in  the  Old  South  to  destroy  the  tea, 
were  met  to  resist,  not  the  laws,  but  illegal  en- 
actions. Shame  on  the  American  who  calls  the 
tea  tax  and  stamp  act  laws  !  Our  fathers  re- 
sisted, not  the  King's  prerogative,  but  the 
King's  usurpation.  To  find  any  other  account, 
you  must  read  our  Revolutionary  history  up- 


104  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

side  down.  Our  State  archives  are  loaded 
with  arguments  of  John  Adams  to  prove  the 
taxes  laid  by  the  British  Parliament  unconstitu- 
tional— beyond  its  power.  It  was  not  until 
this  was  made  out  that  the  men  of  New  Eng- 
land rushed  to  arms.  The  arguments  of  the 
Council  Chamber  and  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives preceded  and  sanctioned  the  contest. 
To  draw  the  conduct  of  our  ancestors  into  a 
precedent  for  mobs,  for  a  right  to  resist  laws  we 
ourselves  have  enacted,  is  an  insult  to  their 
memory.  The  difference  between  the  excite- 
ments of  those  days  and  our  own,  which  the 
gentleman  in  kindness  to  the  latter  has  over- 
looked, is  simply  this :  the  men  of  that  day 
went  for  the  right,  as  secured  by  the  laws. 
They  were  the  people  rising  to  sustain  the  laws 
and  constitution  of  the  Province.  The  rioters 
of  our  days  go  for  their  own  wills,  right  or 
wrong.  Sir,  when  I  heard  the  gentleman  lay 
down  principles  which  place  the  murderers  of 
Alton  side  by  side  with  Otis  and  Hancock, 
with  Quincy  and  Adams,  I  thought  those  pic- 
tured lips  [pointing  to  the  portraits  in  the 
Hall]  would  have  broken  into  voice  to  rebuke 
the  recreant  American — the  slanderer  of  the 
dead.  The  gentleman  said  that  he  should  sink 


THE   MURDER   OF  LOVE  JOY.  10$ 

into  insignificance  if  he  dared  to  gainsay  the 
principles  of  these  resolutions.  Sir,  for  the 
sentiments  he  has  uttered,  on  soil  consecrated 
by  the  prayers  of  Puritans  and  the  blood  of 
patriots,  the  earth  should  have  yawned  and 
swallowed  him  up.4 

[By  this  time,  the  uproar  in  the  Hall  had  risen  so  high  that 
the  speech  was  suspended  for  a  short  time.  Applause  and 
counter  applause,  cries  of  "  Take  that  back,"  "  Make  him 
take  back  recreant,"  "  He  sha'n't  go  on  till  he  takes  it  back," 
and  counter  cries  of  "  Phillips  or  nobody,"  continued  until  the 
pleadings  of  well-known  citizens  had  somewhat  restored  order, 
when  Mr.  Phillips  resumed.] 

Fellow  citizens,  I  cannot  take  back  my  words. 
Surely  the  Attorney-General,  so  long  and  so 
well  known  here,  needs  not  the  aid  of  your 
hisses  against  one  so  young  as  I  am — my  voice 
never  before  heard  within  these  walls !  *  *  *  * 

I  must  find  some  fault  with  the  statement 
which  has  been  made  of  the  events  at  Al- 
ton. It  has  been  asked  why  Lovejoy  and 
his  friends  did  not  appeal  to  the  executive — 
trust  their  defence  to  the  police  of  the  city?  It 
has  been  hinted  that,  from  hasty  and  ill-judged 
excitement,  the  men  within  the  building  pro- 
voked a  quarrel,  and  that  he  fell  in  the  course 
of  it,  one  mob  resisting  another.  Recollect, 
sir,  that  they  did  act  with  the  approbation  and 


106  WENDELL   PHILLIPS. 

sanction  of  the  Mayor.  In  strict  truth,  there 
was  no  executive  to  appeal  to  for  protection. 
The  Mayor  acknowledged  that  he  could  not 
protect  them.  They  asked  him  if  it  was  law- 
ful for  them  to  defend  themselves.  He  told 
them  it  was,  and  sanctioned  their  assembling  in 
arms  to  do  so.  They  were  not,  then,  a  mob  ; 
they  were  not  merely  citizens  defending  their 
own  property;  they  were  in  some  sense  the 
posse  comitatus,  adopted  for  the  occasion  into 
the  police  of  the  city,  acting  under  the  order 
of  a  magistrate.  It  was  civil  authority  resist* 
ing  lawless  violence.  Where,  then,  was  the 
imprudence  ?  Is  the  doctrine  to  be  sustained 
here  that  it  is  imprudent  for  men  to  aid  magis- 
trates in  executing  the  laws  ? 

Men  are  continually  asking  each  other,  Had 
Lovejoy  a  right  to  resist  ?  Sir,  I  protest 
against  the  question  instead  of  answering  it. 
Lovejoy  did  not  resist,  in  the  sense  they  mean. 
He  did  not  throw  himself  back  on  the  natural 
right  of  self-defence.  He  did  not  cry  anarchy, 
and  let  slip  the  dogs  of  civil  war,  careless  of  the 
horrors  which  would  follow.  Sir,  as  I  under- 
stand this  affair,  it  was  not  an  individual  pro- 
tecting his  property ;  it  was  not  one  body  of 
armed  men  resisting  another,  and  making  the 


THE   MURDER   OF  LOVEfOY.  IO/ 

streets  of  a  peaceful  city  run  blood  with  their 
contentions.  It  did  not  bring  back  the  scenes 
in  some  old  Italian  cities,  where  family  met 
family,  and  faction  met  faction,  and  mutually 
trampled  the  laws  under  foot.  No !  the  men 
in  that  house  were  regularly  enrolled,  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Mayor.  There  being  no  militia 
in  Alton,  about  seventy  men  were  enrolled  with 
the  approbation  of  the  Mayor.  These  relieved 
each  other  every  other  night.  About  thirty 
men  were  in  arms  on  the  night  of  the  sixth, 
when  the  press  was  landed.  The  next  evening, 
it  was  not  thought  necessary  to  summon  more 
than  half  that  number;  among  these  was 
Lovejoy.  It  was,  therefore,  you  perceive,  sir, 
the  police  of  the  city  resisting  rioters — civil 
government  breasting  itself  to  the  shock  of  law- 
less men. 

Here  is  no  question  about  the  right  of  self- 
defence.  It  is  in  fact  simply  this:  Has  the 
civil  magistrate  a  right  to  put  down  a  riot  ? 

Some  persons  seem  to  imagine  that  anarchy 
existed  at  Alton  from  the  commencement  of 
these  disputes.  Not  at  all.  "  No  one  of  us," 
says  an  eyewitness  and  a  comrade  of  Lovejoy, 
"  has  taken  up  arms  during  these  disturbances 
but  at  the  command  of  the  Mayor."  Anarchy 


IO8  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

did  not  settle  down  on  that  devoted  city  till 
Lovejoy  breathed  his  last.  Till  then  the  law, 
represented  in  his  person,  sustained  itself 
against  its  foes.  When  he  fell,  civil  authority 
was  trampled  under  foot.  He  had  "  planted 
himself  on  his  constitutional  rights," — appealed 
to  the  laws, — claimed  the  protection  of  the 
civil  authority, — taken  refuge  under  "  the  broad 
shield  of  the  Constitution.  When  through  that 
he  was  pierced  and  fell,  he  fell  but  one  sufferer 
in  a  common  catastrophe."  He  took  refuge 
under  the  banner  of  liberty — amid  its  folds ; 
and  when  he  fell,  its  glorious  stars  and  stripes, 
the  emblem  of  free  institutions,  around  which 
cluster  so  many  heart-stirring  memories,  were 
blotted  out  in  the  martyr's  blood. 

It  has  been  stated,  perhaps  inadvertently, 
that  Lovejoy  or  his  comrades  fired  first.  This 
is  denied  by  those  who  have  the  best  means  of 
knowing.  Guns  were  first  fired  by  the  mob. 
After  being  twice  fired  on,  those  within  the 
building  consulted  together  and  deliberately 
returned  the  fire.  But  suppose  they  did  fire 
first.  They  had  a  right  so  to  do  ;  not  only  the 
right  which  every  citizen  has  to  defend  himself, 
but  the  further  right  which  every  civil  officer 
has  to  resist  violence.  Even  if  Lovejoy  fired 


THE   MURDER   OF  LOVEJOY,  IOO, 

the  first  gun,  it  would  not  lessen  his  claim  to 
our  sympathy,  or  destroy  his  title  to  be  consid- 
ered a  martyr  in  defence  of  a  free  press.  The 
question  now  is,  Did  he  act  within  the  constitu- 
tion and  the  laws?  The  men  who  fell  in  State 
Street,  on  the  5th  of  March,  1770,  did  more 
than  Lovejoy  is  charged  with.6  They  were  the 
first  assailants  upon  some  slight  quarrel,  they 
pelted  the  troops  with  every  missile  within 
reach.  Did  this  bate  one  jot  of  the  eulogy 
with  which  Hancock  and  Warren  hallowed  their 
memory,  hailing  them  as  the  first  martyrs  in 
the  cause  of  American  liberty?  If,  sir,  I  had 
adopted  what  are  called  Peace  principles,  I 
might  lament  the  circumstances  of  this  case. 
But  all  you  who  believe  as  I  do,  in  the  right 
and  duty  of  magistrates  to  execute  the  laws, 
join  with  me  and  brand  as  base  hypocrisy  the 
conduct  of  those  who  assemble  year  after  year 
on  the  4th  of  July  to  fight  over  the  battles  of 
the  Revolution,  and  yet  "  damn  with  faint 
praise "  or  load  with  obloquy,  the  memory  of 
this  man  who  shed  his  blood  in  defence  of  life, 
liberty,  property,  and  the  freedom  of  the  press ! 
Throughout  that  terrible  night  I  find  nothing 
to  regret  but  this,  that,  within  the  limits  of  our 
country,  civil  authority  should  have  been  so  pros- 


IIO  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

trated  as  to  oblige  a  citizen  to  arm  in  his  own 
defence,  and  to  arm  in  vain.  The  gentleman 
says  Lovejoy  was  presumptuous  and  imprudent 
— he  "  died  as  the  fool  dieth."  And  a  rever- 
end clergyman  of  the  city  tells  us  that  no  citi- 
zen has  a  right  to  publish  opinions  disagreeable 
to  the  community!7  If  any  mob  follows  such 
publication,  on  him  rests  its  guilt.  He  must 
wait,  forsooth,  till  the  people  come  up  to  it  and 
agree  with  him  !  This  libel  on  liberty  goes  on 
to  say  that  the  want  of  right  to  speak  as  we 
think  is  an  evil  inseparable  from  republican  in- 
stitutions !  If  this  be  so,  what  are  they  worth? 
Welcome  the  despotism  of  the  Sultan,  where 
one  knows  what  he  may  publish  and  what  he 
may  not,  rather  than  the  tyranny  of  this  many- 
headed  monster,  the  mob,  where  we  know  not 
what  we  may  do  or  say,  till  some  fellow-citizen 
has  tried  it,  and  paid  for  the  lesson  with  his  life. 
This  clerical  absurdity  chooses  as  a  check  for 
the  abuses  of  the  press,  not  the  law,  but  the 
dread  of  a  mob.  By  so  doing,  it  deprives  not 
only  the  individual  and  the  minority  of  their 
rights,  but  the  majority  also,  since  the  expres- 
sion of  their  opinion  may  sometime  provoke 
disturbances  from  the  minority.  A  few  men 
may  make  a  mob  as  well  as  many.  The  major- 


THE  MURDER   OF  LOVEJOY.  Ill 

ity  then,  have  no  right,  as  Christian  men,  to 
utter  their  sentiments,  if  by  any  possibility  it 
may  lead  to  a  mob!  Shades  of  Hugh  Peters 
and  John  Cotton,  save  us  from  such  pulpits ! 8 

Imprudent  to  defend  the  liberty  of  the  press  ! 
Why?  Because  the  defence  was  unsuccessful  ? 
Does  success  gild  crime  into  patriotism,  and  the 
want  of  it  change  heroic  self-devotion  to  im- 
prudence ?  Was  Hampden  imprudent  when  he 
drew  the  sword  and  threw  away  the  scabbard  ? 
Yet  he,  judged  by  that  single  hour,  was  unsuc- 
cessful. After  a  short  exile,  the  race  he  hated 
sat  again  upon  the  throne. 

Imagine  yourself  present  when  the  first  news 
of  Bunker  Hill  battle  reached  a  New  England 
town.  The  tale  would  have  run  thus:  "The 
patriots  are  routed, — the  redcoats  victorious, — • 
Warren  lies  dead  upon  the  field."  With  what 
scorn  would  that  Tory  have  been  received,  who 
should  have  charged  Warren  with  imprudence  ! 
who  should  have  said  that,  bred  a  physician, 
he  was  "  out  of  place  "  in  that  battle,  and  "died 
as  the  fool  dieth"  How  would  the  intimation 
have  been  received,  that  Warren  and  his  asso- 
ciates should  have  merited  a  better  time  ?  But 
if  success  be  indeed  the  only  criterion  of  pru- 
dence, Respice finem, — wait  till  the  end! 


112  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

Presumptuous  to  assert  the  freedom  of  the 
press  on  American  ground  !  Is  the  assertion  of 
such  freedom  before  the  age  ?  So  much  before 
the  age  as  to  leave  one  no  right  to  make  it 
because  it  displeases  the  community?  Who  in- 
vents this  libel  on  his  country  ?  It  is  this  very 
thing  which  entitles  Lovejoy  to  greater  praise. 
The  disputed  right  which  provoked  the  Revo- 
lution— taxation  without  representation — is  far 
beneath  that  for  which  he  died.  [Here  there 
was  a  general  expression  of  strong  disapproba- 
tion.] One  word,  gentlemen.  As  much  as 
thought  is  better  than  money,  so  much  is  the 
cause  in  which  Lovejoy  died  nobler  than  a 
mere  question  of  taxes.  James  Otis  thundered 
in  this  hall  when  the  King  did  but  touch  his 
pocket.  Imagine,  if  you  can,  his  indignant  elo- 
quence had  England  offered  to  put  a  gag  upon 
his  lips.  The  question  that  stirred  the  Revolu- 
tion touched  our  civil  interests.  This  concerns 
us  not  only  as  citizens,  but  as  immortal  beings. 
Wrapped  up  in  its  fate,  saved  or  lost  with  it, 
are  not  only  the  voice  of  the  statesman,  but 
the  instructions  of  the  pulpit  and  the  progress 
of  our  faith. 

The  clergy,  "  marvellously  out  of  place " 
where  free  speech  is  battled  for — liberty  of 


THE  MURDER   OF  LOVE  JOY.  113 

speech  on  national  sins !  Does  the  gentleman 
remember  that  freedom  to  preach  was  first 
gained,  dragging  in  its  train  freedom  to  print  ? 
I  thank  the  clergy  here  present,  as  I  reverence 
their  predecessors,  who  did  not  so  far  forget 
their  country  in  their  immediate  profession  as 
to  deem  it  duty  to  separate  themselves  from 
the  struggle  of  '76 — the  Mayhews  and  Coopers,9 
who  remembered  that  they  were  citizens  before 
they  were  clergymen. 

Mr.  Chairman,  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart 
I  thank  that  brave  little  band  at  Alton  for  re- 
sisting. We  must  remember  that  Lovejoy  had 
fled  from  city  to  city, — suffered  the  destruction 
of  three  presses  patiently.  At  length  he  took 
counsel  with  friends,  men  of  character,  of  tried 
integrity,  of  wide  views,  of  Christian  principle. 
They  thought  the  crisis  had  come  ;  it  was  full 
time  to  assert  the  laws.  They  saw  around  them, 
not  a  community  like  our  own,  of  fixed  habits, 
of  character  moulded  and  settled,  but  one  "  in 
the  gristle,  not  yet  hardened  into  the  bone  of 
manhood."  The  people  there,  children  of  our 
older  States,  seem  to  have  forgotten  the  blood- 
tried  principles  of  their  fathers  the  moment 
they  lost  sight  of  our  New  England  hills. 
Something  was  to  be  done  to  show  them  the 
priceless  value  of  the  freedom  of  the  press,  to 


VOL.  II. — 8. 


114  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

bring  back  and  set  right  their  wandering  and 
confused  ideas.  He  and  his  advisers  looked 
out  on  a  community,  staggering  like  a  drunken 
man,  indifferent  to  their  rights  and  confused  in 
their  feelings.  Deaf  to  argument,  haply  they 
might  be  stunned  into  sobriety.  They  saw  that 
of  which  we  cannot  judge,  the  necessity  of  re- 
sistance. Insulted  law  called  for  it.  Public 
opinion,  fast  hastening  on  the  downward  course, 
must  be  arrested. 

Does  not  the  event  show  they  judged  rightly? 
Absorbed  in  a  thousand  trifles,  how  has  the  na- 
tion all  at  once  come  to  a  stand  ?  Men  begin, 
as  in  1776  and  1640,  to  discuss  principles,  to 
weigh  characters,  to  find  out  where  they  are. 
Haply  we  may  awake  before  we  are  borne  over 
the  precipice. 

I  am  glad,  sir,  to  see  this  crowded  house,  It 
is  good  for  us  to  be  here.  When  Liberty  is  in 
danger  Faneuil  Hall  has  the  right,  it  is  her  duty, 
to  strike  the  key-note  for  these  United  States. 
I  am  glad,  for  one  reason,  that  remarks  such  as 
those  to  which  I  have  alluded  have  been  ut- 
tered here.  The  passage  of  these  resolutions, 
in  spite  of  this  opposition,  led  by  the  Attorney- 
General  of  the  Commonwealth,  will  show  more 
clearly,  more  decisively,  the  deep  indignation 
with  which  Boston  regards  this  outrage.10 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  * 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS.1 
(BORN  1767,  DIED  1848.) 


ON    THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   WAR   POWER   OVER   SLA- 
VERY*— HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES, 
MAY    25,    1836. 

THERE  are,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  author, 
ity  of  Congress  and  of  the  Executive,  two  classes 
of  powers,  altogether  different  in  their  nature, 
and  often  incompatible  with  each  other — the 
war  power  and  the  peace  power.  The  peace 
power  is  limited  by  regulations  and  restricted 
by  provisions,  prescribed  within  the  constitu- 
tion itself.  The  war  power  is  limited  only  by 
the  laws  and  usages  of  nations.  The  power  is 
tremendous ;  it  is  strictly  constitutional,  but  it 
breaks  down  every  barrier  so  anxiously  erected 
for  the  protection  of  liberty,  of  property,  and 

*  For  notes  on  Adams,  see  Appendix,  p.  372. 


Il6  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

of  life.  This,  sir,  is  the  power  which  author- 
izes you  to  pass  the  resolution  now  before  you, 
and,  in  my  opinion,  there  is  no  other. 

And  this,  sir,  is  the  reason  which  I  was  not 
permitted  to  give  this  morning  for  voting  with 
only  eight  associates  against  the  first  resolution 
reported  by  the  committee  on  the  abolition 
petitions  ;  not  one  word  of  discussion  had  been 
permitted  on  either  of  those  resolutions.  When 
called  to  vote  upon  the  first  of  them,  I  asked 
only  five  minutes  of  the  time  of  the  House  to 
prove  that  it  was  utterly  unfoundedo  It  was 
not  the  pleasure  of  the  House  to  grant  me  those 
five  minutes.  Sir,  I  must  say  that,  in  all  the 
proceedings  of  the  House  upon  that  report, 
from  the  previous  question,  moved  and  inflexi- 
bly persisted  in  by  a  member  of  the  commit- 
tee itself  which  reported  the  resolutions,  (Mr. 
Owens,  of  Georgia,)  to  the  refusal  of  the  Speaker, 
sustained  by  the  majority  of  the  House,  to  per- 
mit the  other  gentleman  from  Georgia  (Mr. 
Glascock)  to  record  upon  the  journal  his  reasons 
for  asking  to  be  excused  from  voting  on  that 
same  resolution,  the  freedom  of  debate  has  been 
stifled  in  this  House  to  a  degree  far  beyond  any 
thing  that  ever  happened  since  the  existence  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  nor  is  it 


THE    WAR  POWER   OVER   SLAVERY.      1 1/ 

a  consolatory  reflection  to  me  how  intensely  we 
have  been  made  to  feel,  in  the  process  of  that 
operation,  that  the  Speaker  of  this  House  is  a 
slaveholder.3  And,  sir,  as  I  was  not  then  per- 
mitted to  assign  my  reasons  for  voting  against 
that  resolution  before  I  gave  the  vote,  I  rejoice 
that  the  reason  for  which  I  shall  vote  for  the 
resolution  now  before  the  committee  is  identi- 
cally the  same  with  that  for  which  I  voted 
against  that. 

[Mr.  Adams  at  this,  and  at  many  other  pas- 
sages of  this  speech,  was  interrupted  by  calls  to 
order.  The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  (Mr. 
A.  H.  Shepperd,  of  North  Carolina,)  in  every 
instance,  decided  that  he  was  not  out  of  order, 
but  at  this  passage  intimated  that  he  was  ap- 
proaching very  close  upon  its  borders ;  upon 
which  Mr.  Adams  said,  "  Then  I  am  to  under- 
stand, sir,  that  I  am  yet  within  the  bounds  of 
order,  but  that  I  may  transcend  them  hereafter."] 
******  ** 

And,  now,  sir,  am  I  to  be  disconcerted  and 
silenced,  or  admonished  by  the  Chair  that  I  am 
approaching  to  irrelevant  matter,  which  may 
warrant  him  to  arrest  me  in  my  argument,  be- 
cause I  say  that  the  reason  for  which  I  shall 
vote  for  the  resolution  now  before  the  commit- 


Il8  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

tee,  levying  a  heavy  contribution  upon  the 
property  of  my  constituents,  is  identically  the 
same  with  the  reason  for  which  I  voted  against 
the  resolution  reported  by  the  slavery  commit- 
tee, that  Congress  have  no  authority  to  interfere, 
in  any  way,  with  slavery  in  any  of  the  States  of 
this  Union.  Sir,  I  was  not  allowed  to  give  my 
reasons  for  that  vote,  and  a  majority  of  my  con- 
stituents, perhaps  proportionately  as  large  as 
that  of  this  House  in  favor  of  that  resolution, 
may  and  probably  will  disapprove  my  vote 
against,  unless  my  reasons  for  so  voting  should 
be  explained  to  them.  I  asked  but  five  min- 
utes of  the  House  to  give  those  reasons,  and 
was  refused.  I  shall,  therefore,  take  the  liberty 
to  give  them  now,  as  they  are  strictly  applica- 
ble to  the  measure  now  before  the  Committee, 
and  are  my  only  justification  for  voting  in  favor 
of  this  resolution. 

I  return,  then,  to  my  first  position,  that  there 
are  two  classes  of  powers  vested  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  in  their  Congress 
and  Executive  Government :  the  powers  to  be 
exercised  in  the  time  of  peace,  and  the  powers 
incidental  to  war.  That  the  powers  of  peace 
are  limited  by  provisions  within  the  body  of 
the  Constitution  itself,  but  that  the  powers  of 


THE    WAR  POWER   OVER   SLAVERY.      \\g 

war  are  limited  and  regulated  only  by  the  laws 
and  usages  of  nations.  There  are,  indeed,  pow- 
ers of  peace  conferred  upon  Congress,  which 
also  come  within  the  scope  and  jurisdiction  of 
the  laws  of  nations,  such  as  the  negotiation  of 
treaties  of  amity  and  commerce,  the  interchange 
of  public  ministers  and  consuls,  and  all  the  per- 
sonal and  social  intercourse  between  the  indi- 
vidual inhabitants  of  the  United  States  and 
foreign  nations,  and  the  Indian  tribes,  which 
require  the  interposition  of  any  law.  But  the 
powers  of  war  are  all  regulated  by  the  laws  of 
nations,  and  are  subject  to  no  other  limitation. 
It  is  by  this  power  that  I  am  justified  in  voting 
the  money  of  my  constituents  for  the  immedi- 
ate relief  of  their  fellow-citizens  suffering  with 
extreme  necessity  even  for  subsistence,  by  the 
direct  consequence  of  an  Indian  war.  Upon 
the  same  principle,  your  consuls  in  foreign 
ports  are  authorized  to  provide  for  the  subsist- 
ence of  seamen  in  distress,  and  even  for  their 
passage  to  their  own  country. 

And  it  was  upon  that  same  principle  that  I 
voted  against  the  resolution  reported  by  the 
slavery  committee,  "  That  Congress  possess  no 
constitutional  authority  to  interfere,  in  any 
way,  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  any  of 


120  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

the  States  of  this  confederacy,"  to  which  reso- 
lution most  of  those  with  whom  I  usually  con- 
cur, and  even  my  own  colleagues  in  this  House, 
gave  their  assent.5  I  do  not  admit  that  there 
is  even  among  the  peace  powers  of  Congress 
no  such  authority  ;  but  in  war  there  are  many 
ways  by  which  Congress  not  only  have  the 
authority,  but  are  bound  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States.  The  ex- 
isting law  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves 
into  the  United  States  from  foreign  countries, 
is  itself  an  interference  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  in  the  States.  It  was  so  considered  by 
the  founders  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  in  which  it  was  stipulated  that  Congress 
should  not  interfere,  in  that  way,  with  the  in- 
stitution, prior  to  the  year  1808. 

During  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain  the 
military  and  naval  commanders  of  that  nation 
issued  proclamations  inviting  the  slaves  to  re- 
pair to  their  standards,  with  promises  of  free- 
dom and  of  settlement  in  some  of  the  British 
colonial  establishments.  This,  surely,  was  an 
interference  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in 
the  States.  By  the  treaty  of  peace,  Great 
Britain  stipulated  to  evacuate  all  the  forts  and 
places  in  the  United  States,  without  carrying 


THE    WAR  POWER   OVER   SLAVERY.      121 

away  any  slaves.  If  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  had  no  authority  to  interfere,  in 
any  way,  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the 
States,  they  would  not  have  had  the  authority 
to  require  this  stipulation.  It  is  well  known 
that  this  engagement  was  not  fulfilled  by  the 
British  naval  and  military  commanders  ;  that, 
on  the  contrary,  they  did  carry  away  all  the 
slaves  whom  they  had  induced  to  join  them, 
and  that  the  British  Government  inflexibly  re- 
fused to  restore  any  of  them  to  their  masters  ; 
that  a  claim  of  indemnity  was  consequently 
instituted  in  behalf  of  the  owners  of  the  slaves, 
and  was  successfully  maintained.  All  that 
series  of  transactions  was  an  interference  by 
Congress  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the 
States  in  one  way — in  the  way  of  protection 
and  support.  It  was  by  the  institution  of 
slavery  alone  that  the  restitution  of  slaves  en- 
ticed by  proclamations  into  the  British  service 
could  be  claimed  as  property.  But  for  the 
institution  of  slavery,  the  British  commanders 
could  neither  have  allured  them  to  their  stand- 
ard, nor  restored  them  otherwise  than  as 
liberated  prisoners  of  war.  But  for  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery,  there  could  have  been  no  stipu- 
lation that  they  should  not  be  carried  away  as 


122  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

property,  nor  any  claim  of  indemnity  for  the 
violation  of  that  engagement. 

But  the  war  power  of  Congress  over  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  in  the  States  is  yet  far  more 
extensive.  Suppose  the  case  of  a  servile  war, 
complicated,  as  to  some  extent  it  is  even  now, 
with  an  Indian  war ;  suppose  Congress  were 
called  to  raise  armies,  to  supply  money  from 
the  whole  Union,  to  suppress  a  servile  insurrec- 
tion :  would  they  have  no  authority  to  interfere 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  ?  The  issue  of 
a  servile  war  may  be  disastrous.  By  war  the 
slave  may  emancipate  himself ;  it  may  become 
necessary  for  the  master  to  recognize  his  eman- 
cipation by  a  treaty  of  peace  ;  can  it  for  an 
instant  be  pretended  that  Congress,  in  such  a 
contingency,  would  have  no  authority  to  inter- 
fere with  the  institution  of  slavery,  in  any  way, 
in  the  States?  Why,  it  would  be  equivalent  to 
saying  that  Congress  have  no  constitutional 
authority  to  make  peace.' 


JOHN    C.    CALHOUN,* 

OF  SOUTH   CAROLINA.1 
(BORN  1782,  DIED  1850.) 


ON     THE     SLAVERY   QUESTION,     SENATE,    MARCH    4, 
1850.' 

I  HAVE,  Senators,  believed  from  the  first  that 
the  agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  would,  if 
not  prevented  by  some  timely  and  effective 
measure,  end  in  disunion.  Entertaining  this 
opinion,  I  have,  on  all  proper  occasions,  en- 
deavored to  call  the  attention  of  both  the  two 
great  parties  which  divide  the  country  to  adopt 
some  measure  to  prevent  so  great  a  disaster, 
but  without  success.  The  agitation  has  been 
permitted  to  proceed,  with  almost  no  attempt 
to  resist  it,  until  it  has  reached  a  point  when  it 
can  no  longer  be  disguised  or  denied  that  the 
Union  is  in  danger.  You  have  thus  had  forced 
upon  you  the  greatest  and  the  gravest  question 
that  can  ever  come  under  your  consideration  : 
How  can  the  Union  be  preserved  ? 

*  For  notes  on  Calhoun,  see  Appendix,  p.  376. 
123 


124  JOHN  C.    CALIJOUN. 

To  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  mighty 
question,  it  is  indispensable  to  have  an  accurate 
and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  nature  and 
the  character  of  the  cause  by  which  the  Union 
is  endangered.  Without  such  knowledge  it 
is  impossible  to  pronounce,  with  any  certainty, 
by  what  measure  it  can  be  saved  ;  just  as  it 
would  be  impossible  for  a  physician  to  pro- 
nounce, in  the  case  of  some  dangerous  disease, 
with  any  certainty,  by  what  remedy  the  patient 
could  be  saved,  without  similar  knowledge  of 
the  nature  and  character  of  the  cause  which 
produced  it.  The  first  question,  then,  presented 
for  consideration,  in  the  investigation  I  pro- 
pose to  make,  in  order  to  obtain  such  knowl- 
edge, is :  What  is  it  that  has  endangered  the 
Union  ? 

To  this  question  there  can  be  but  one  an- 
swer :  That  the  immediate  cause  is  the  almost 
universal  discontent  which  pervades  all  the 
States  composing  the  southern  section  of  the 
Union.  This  widely-extended  discontent  is  not 
of  recent  origin.  It  commenced  with  the  agita- 
tion of  the  slavery  question,  and  has  been  in- 
creasing ever  since.  The  next  question,  going 
one  step  further  back,  is :  What  has  caused  this 
widely-diffused  and  almost  universal  discon- 
tent? 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  12$ 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  as  is  by 
some,  that  it  originated  with  demagogues,  who 
excited  the  discontent  with  the  intention  of 
aiding  their  personal  advancement,  or  with  the 
disappointed  ambition  of  certain  politicians, 
who  resorted  to  it  as  a  means  of  retrieving  their 
fortunes.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  great  politi- 
cal influences  of  the  section  were  arrayed  against 
excitement,  and  exerted  to  the  utmost  to  keep 
the  people  quiet.  The  great  mass  of  the 
people  of  the  South  were  divided,  as  in  the 
other  section,  into  Whigs  and  Democrats.  The 
leaders  and  the  presses  of  both  parties  in  the 
South  were  very  solicitous  to  prevent  excite- 
ment and  to  preserve  quiet ;  because  it  was 
seen  that  the  effects  of  the  former  would  neces- 
sarily tend  to  weaken,  if  not  destroy,  the  politi- 
cal ties  which  united  them  with  their  respec- 
tive parties  in  the  other  section.  Those  who 
know  the  strength  of  the  party  ties  will  readily 
appreciate  the  immense  force  which  this  cause 
exerted  against  agitation,  and  in  favor  of  pre- 
serving quiet.  But,  great  as  it  was,  it  was  not 
sufficient  to  prevent  the  wide-spread  discontent 
which  now  pervades  the  section.  No ;  some 
cause,  far  deeper  and  more  powerful  than  the 
one  supposed,  must  exist,  to  account  for  dis- 


126  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

content  so  wide  and  deep.  The  question  then 
recurs  :  What  is  the  cause  of  this  discontent  ?  It 
will  be  found  in  the  belief  of  the  people  of  the 
Southern  States,  as  prevalent  as  the  discontent 
itself,  that  they  cannot  remain,  as  things  now 
are,  consistently  with  honor  and  safety,  in  the 
Union.  The  next  question  to  be  considered  is  : 
What  has  caused  this  belief  ? 

One  of  the  causes  is,  undoubtedly,  to  be 
traced  to  the  long-continued  agitation  of  the 
slavery  question  on  the  part  of  the  North,  and 
the  many  aggressions  which  they  have  made  on 
the  rights  of  the  South  during  the  time.  I  will 
not  enumerate  them  at  present,  as  it  will  be 
done  hereafter  in  its  proper  place. 

There  is  another  lying  back  of  it — with  which 
this  is  intimately  connected — that  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  great  and  primary  cause.  This  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  equilibrium  be- 
tween the  two  sections,  in  the  Government  as  it 
stood  when  the  Constitution  was  ratified  and  the 
Government  put  in  action,  has  been  destroyed. 
At  that  time  there  was  nearly  a  perfect  equilib- 
rium between  the  two,  which  afforded  ample 
means  to  each  to  protect  itself  against  the  ag- 
gression of  the  other ;  but,  as  it  now  stands,  one 
section  has  the  exclusive  power  of  controlling 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  12? 

the  Government,  which  leaves  the  other  without 
any  adequate  means  of  protecting  itself  against 
its  encroachment  and  oppression.  To  place 
this  subject  distinctly  before  you,  I  have,  Sena- 
tors, prepared  a  brief  statistical  statement, 
showing  the  relative  weight  of  the  two  sections 
in  the  Government  under  the  first  census  of 
1790,  and  the  last  census  of  1840. 

According  to  the  former,  the  population  of 
the  United  States,  including  Vermont,  Ken- 
tucky, and  Tennessee,  which  then  were  in  their 
incipient  condition  of  becoming  States,  but 
were  not  actually  admitted,  amounted  to 
3,929,827.  Of  this  number  the  Northern  States 
had  1,997,899,  and  the  Southern  1,952,072, 
making  a  difference  of  only  45,827  in  favor  of 
the  former  States. 

The  number  of  States,  including  Vermont, 
Kentucky,  and  Tennessee,  were  sixteen ;  of 
which  eight,  including  Vermont,  belonged  to 
the  northern  section,  and  eight,  including  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee,  to  the  southern, — making 
an  equal  division  of  the  States  between  the  two 
sections,  under  the  first  census.  There  was  a 
small  preponderance  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  in  the  Electoral  College,  in  favor 
of  the  northern,  owing  to  the  fact  that,  accord- 


128  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

ing  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  in  esti- 
mating federal  numbers  five  slaves  count  but 
three  ;  but  it  was  too  small  to  affect  sensibly 
the  perfect  equilibrium  which,  with  that  excep- 
tion, existed  at  the  time.  Such  was  the  equality 
of  the  two  sections  when  the  States  composing 
them  agreed  to  enter  into  a  Federal  Union. 
Since  then  the  equilibrium  between  them  has 
been  greatly  disturbed. 

According  to  the  last  census  the  aggregate 
population  of  the  United  States  amounted  to 
17,063,357,  of  which  the  northern  section 
contained 9,728,920,  and  the  southern  7,334,437, 
making  a  difference  in  round  numbers,  of 
2,400,000.  The  number  of  States  had  increased 
from  sixteen  to  twenty-six,  making  an  addition 
of  ten  States.  In  the  meantime  the  position  of 
Delaware  had  become  doubtful  as  to  which  sec- 
tion she  properly  belonged.  Considering  her  as 
neutral,  the  Northern  States  will  have  thirteen 
and  the  Southern  States  twelve,  making  a  dif- 
ference in  the  Senate  of  two  senators  in  favor 
of  the  former.  According  to  the  apportion- 
ment under  the  census  of  1840,  there  were  two 
hundred  and  twenty-three  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  of  which  the  North- 
ern States  had  one  hundred  and  thirty-five,  and 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  1 29 

the  Southern  States  (considering  Delaware 
as  neutral)  eighty-seven,  making  a  difference  in 
favor  of  the  former  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  forty-eight.  The  difference  in  the 
Senate  of  two  members,  added  to  this,  gives 
to  the  North  in  the  Electoral  College,  a  majority 
of  fifty.  Since  the  census  of  1840,  four  States 
have  been  added  to  the  Union — Iowa,  Wis- 
consin, Florida,  and  Texas.  They  leave  the 
difference  in  the  Senate  as  it  was  when  the 
census  was  taken  ;  but  add  two  to  the  side  of  the 
North  in  the  House,  making  the  present  major- 
ity in  the  House  in  its  favor  fifty,  and  in  the 
Electoral  College  fifty-two. 

The  result  of  the  whole  is  to  give  the  north- 
ern section  a  predominance  in  every  department 
of  the  Government,  and  thereby  concentrate  in 
it  the  two  elements  which  constitute  the  Fed- 
eral Government, — majority  of  States,  and  a 
majority  of  their  population,  estimated  in  federal 
numbers.  Whatever  section  concentrates  the 
two  in  itself  possesses  the  control  of  the  entire 
Government. 

But  we  are  just  at  the  close  of  the  sixth 
decade,  and  the  commencement  of  the  seventh. 
The  census  is  to  be  taken  this  year,  which  must 
add  greatly  to  the  decided  preponderance  of 


130  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

the  North  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
in  the  Electoral  College.  The  prospect  is,  also, 
that  a  great  increase  will  be  added  to  its  present 
preponderance  in  the  Senate,  during  the  period 
of  the  decade,  by  the  addition  of  new  States. 
Two  territories,  Oregon  and  Minnesota,  are 
already  in  progress,  and  strenuous  efforts  are 
making  to  bring  in  three  additional  States 8  from 
the  territory  recently  conquered  from  Mexico  ; 
which,  if  successful,  will  add  three  other  States 
in  a  short  time  to  the  northern  section,  making 
five  States;  and  increasing  the  present  number 
of  its  States  from  fifteen  to  twenty,  and  of  its 
senators  from  thirty  to  forty.  On  the  contrary, 
there  is  not  a  single  territory  in  progress  in  the 
southern  section,  and  no  certainty  that  any 
additional  State  will  be  added  to  it  during  the 
decade.  The  prospect  then  is,  that  the  two 
sections  in  the  senate,  should  the  effort  now 
made  to  exclude  the  South  4  from  the  newly 
acquired  territories  succeed,  will  stand  before 
the  end  of  the  decade,  twenty  Northern  States 
to  fourteen  Southern  (considering  Delaware  as 
neutral),  and  forty  Northern  senators  to  twenty- 
eight  Southern.  This  great  increase  of  senators, 
added  to  the  great  increase  of  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  and  the  Electoral 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  13! 

College  on  the  part  of  the  North,  which  must 
take  place  under  the  next  decade,  will  effectually 
and  irretrievably  destroy  the  equilibrium  which 
existed  when  the  Government  commenced.6 

Had  this  destruction  been  the  operation  of 
time,  without  the  interference  of  Government, 
the  South  would  have  had  no  reason  to  com- 
plain ;  but  such  was  not  the  fact.  It  was 
caused  by  the  legislation  of  this  Government, 
which  was  appointed  as  the  common  agent  of 
all,  and  charged  with  the  protection  of  the  in- 
terests and  security  of  all.  The  legislation  by 
which  it  has  been  effected  may  be  classed  under 
three  heads.  The  first  is,  that  series  of  acts  by 
which  the  South  has  been  excluded  from  the 
common  territory  belonging  to  all  the  States  as 
members  of  the  Federal  Union — which  have 
had  the  effect  of  extending  vastly  the  portion 
allotted  to  the  northern  section,  and  restricting 
within  narrow  limits  the  portion  left  the  South. 
The  next  consists  in  adopting  a  system  of  revenue 
and  disbursements,  by  which  an  undue  propor- 
tion of  the  burden  of  taxation  has  been  imposed 
upon  the  South,  and  an  undue  proportion  of  its 
proceeds  appropriated  to  the  North  ;  and  the 
last  is  a  system  of  political  measures,  by  which 
the  original  character  of  the  Government  has 


132  JOHN-  C.    CALHOUN. 

been  radically  changed.  I  propose  to  bestow 
upon  each  of  these,  in  the  order  they  stand,  a 
few  remarks,  with  the  view  of  showing  that  it 
is  owing  to  the  action  of  this  Government  that 
the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  has 
been  destroyed,  and  the  whole  powers  of  the 
system  centered  in  a  sectional  majority. 

The  first  of  the  series  of  Acts  by  which  the 
South  was  deprived  of  its  due  share  of  the 
territories,  originated  with  the  confederacy 
which  preceded  the  existence  of  this  Govern- 
ment. It  is  to  be  found  in  the  provision  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787.  Its  effect  was  to  exclude 
the  South  entirely  from  that  vast  and  fertile 
region  which  lies  between  the  Ohio  and  the 
Mississippi  rivers,  now  embracing  five  States 
and  one  Territory."  The  next  of  the  series  is 
the  Missouri  compromise,  which  excluded  the 
South  from  that  large  portion  of  Louisiana 
which  lies  north  of  36°  30',  excepting  what  is 
included  in  the  State  of  Missouri.  The  last  of 
the  series  excluded  the  South  from  the  whole 
of  Oregon  Territory.  All  these,  in  the  slang  of 
the  day,  were  what  are  called  slave  territories/ 
and  not  free  soil ;  that  is,  territories  belonging 
to  slaveholding  powers  and  open  to  the  emi- 
gration of  masters  with  their  slaves.  By  these 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION,  133 

several  Acts  the  South  was  excluded  from  one 
million  two  hundred  and  thirty-eight  thousand 
and  twenty-five  square  miles — an  extent  of 
country  considerably  exceeding  the  entire  val- 
ley of  the  Mississippi.  To  the  South  was  left 
the  portion  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  lying 
south  of  36°  30',  and  the  portion  north  of  it  in- 
cluded in  the  State  of  Missouri,  with  the  por. 
tion  lying  south  of  36°  30'  including  the  States 
of  Louisiana  and  Arkansas,  and  the  territory 
lying  west  of  the  latter,  and  south  of  36°  30', 
called  the  Indian  country.  These,  with  the 
Territory  of  Florida,  now  the  State,  make,  in 
the  whole,  two  hundred  and  eighty-three  thou- 
sand five  hundred  and  three  square  miles.  To 
this  must  be  added  the  territory  acquired  with 
Texas.  If  the  whole  should  be  added  to  the 
southern  section  it  would  make  an  increase  of 
three  hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  five 
hundred  and  twenty,  which  would  make  the 
whole  left  to  the  South  six  hundred  and  nine 
thousand  and  twenty-three.  But  a  large  part 
of  Texas  is  still  in  contest  between  the  two  sec- 
tions, which  leaves  it  uncertain  what  will  be  the 
real  extent  of  the  proportion  of  territory  that 
may  be  left  to  the  South. 

I  have  not  included  the  territory  recently  ac- 


134  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

quired  by  the  treaty  with  Mexico.  The  North  is 
making  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  appropri- 
ate the  whole  to  herself,  by  excluding  the 
South  from  every  foot  of  it.  If  she  should 
succeed,  it  will  add  to  that  from  which  the 
South  has  already  been  excluded,  526,078 
square  miles,  and  would  increase  the  whole 
which  the  North  has  appropriated  to  herself,  to 
i,  764,023,  not  including  the  portion  that  she 
may  succeed  in  excluding  us  from  in  Texas. 
To  sum  up  the  whole,  the  United  States,  since 
they  declared  their  independence,  have  acquired 
2,373,046  square  miles  of  territory,  from  which 
the  North  will  have  excluded  the  South,  if  she 
should  succeed  in  monopolizing  the  newly  ac- 
quired territories,  about  three  fourths  of  the 
whole,  leaving  to  the  South  but  about  one 
fourth. 

Such  is  the  first  and  great  cause  that  has 
destroyed  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sec- 
tions in  the  Government. 

The  next  is  the  system  of  revenue  and  dis- 
bursements which  has  been  adopted  by  the 
Government.  It  is  well  known  that  the  Govern- 
ment has  derived  its  revenue  mainly  from  du- 
ties on  imports.  I  shall  not  undertake  to  show 
that  such  duties  must  necessarily  fall  mainly  on 


THE    SLAVERY  QUESTION.  135 

the  exporting  States,  and  that  the  South,  as 
the  great  exporting  portion  of  the  Union,  has 
in  reality  paid  vastly  more  than  her  due  pro- 
portion of  the  revenue ;  because  I  deem  it  un- 
necessary, as  the  subject  has  on  so  many  occa- 
sions been  fully  discussed.  Nor  shall  I,  for  the 
same  reason,  undertake  to  show  that  a  far 
greater  portion  of  the  revenue  has  been  dis- 
bursed at  the  North,  than  its  due  share  ;  and 
that  the  joint  effect  of  these  causes  has 
been,  to  transfer  a  vast  amount  from  South  to 
North,  which,  under  an  equal  system  of  revenue 
and  disbursements,  would  not  have  been  lost  to 
her.  If  to  this  be  added,  that  many  of  the 
duties  were  imposed,  not  for  revenue,  but  for 
protection, — that  is,  intended  to  put  money, 
not  in  the  treasury,  but  directly  into  the 
pockets  of  the  manufacturers, — some  concep- 
tion may  be  formed  of  the  immense  amount 
which,  in  the  long  course  of  sixty  years,  has 
been  transferred  from  South  to  North.  There 
are  no  data  by  which  it  can  be  estimated  with 
any  certainty ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  •  it 
amounts  to  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  Un- 
der the  most  moderate  estimate,  it  would  be 
sufficient  to  add  greatly  to  the  wealth  of  the 
North,  and  thus  greatly  increase  her  popula- 


136  JOHN   C.    CALHOUN. 

tion  by  attracting  emigration  from  all  quarters 
to  that  section. 

This,  combined  with  the  great  primary  cause, 
amply  explains  why  the  North  has  acquired 
a  preponderance  in  every  department  of  the 
Government  by  its  disproportionate  increase  of 
population  and  States.  The  former,  as  has 
been  shown,  has  increased,  in  fifty  years,  2,400,- 
ooo  over  that  of  the  South.  This  increase  of 
population,  during  so  long  a  period,  is  satisfac- 
torily accounted  for,  by  the  number  of  emi- 
grants, and  the  increase  of  their  descendants, 
which  have  been  attracted  to  the  northern  sec- 
tion from  Europe  and  the  South,  in  consequence 
of  the  advantages  derived  from  the  causes  as- 
signed. If  they  had  not  existed — if  the  South 
had  retained  all  the  capital  which  had  been  ex- 
tracted from  her  by  the  fiscal  action  of  the 
Government ;  and,  if  it  had  not  been  excluded 
by  the  ordinance  of  1787  and  the  Missouri  com- 
promise, from  the  region  lying  between  the 
Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  rivers,  and  between 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Rocky  Mountains  north 
of  36°  30' — it  scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt,  that  it 
would  have  divided  the  emigration  with  the 
North,  and  by  retaining  her  own  people,  would 
have  at  least  equalled  the  North  in  population 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  137 

under  the  census  of  1840,  and  probably  under 
that  about  to  be  taken.  She  would  also,  if  she 
had  retained  her  equal  rights  in  those  territories, 
have  maintained  an  equality  in  the  number  of 
States  with  the  North,  and  have  preserved  the 
equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  that 
existed  at  the  commencement  of  the  Govern- 
ment. The  loss,  then,  of  the  equilibrium  is 
to  be  attributed  to  the  action  of  this  Govern- 
ment. 

But  while  these  measures  were  destroying  the 
equilibrium  between  the  two  sections,  the  action 
of  the  Government  was  leading  to  a  radical 
change  in  its  character,  by  concentrating  all  the 
power  of  the  system  in  itself.  The  occasion 
will  not  permit  me  to  trace  the  measures  by 
which  this  great  change  has  been  consummated. 
If  it  did,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that 
the  process  commenced  at  an  early  period  of 
the  Government ;  and  that  it  proceeded,  almost 
without  interruption,  step  by  step,  until  it  vir- 
tually absorbed  its  entire  powers  ;  but  without 
going  through  the  whole  process  to  establish 
the  fact,  it  may  be  done  satisfactorily  by  a  very 
short  statement. 

That  the  Government  claims,  and  practically 
maintains,  the  right  to  decide  in  the  last  resort. 


138  JOHN   C.    CALHOUN. 

as  to  the  extent  of  its  powers,8  will  scarcely  be 
denied  by  any  one  conversant  with  the  political 
history  of  the  country.  That  it  also  claims  the 
right  to  resort  to  force  to  maintain  whatever 
power  it  claims  against  all  opposition  is  equally 
certain.  Indeed  it  is  apparent,  from  what  we 
daily  hear,  that  this  has  become  the  prevailing 
and  fixed  opinion  of  a  great  majority  of  the 
community.  Now,  I  ask,  what  limitation  can 
possibly  be  placed  upon  the  powers  of  a  gov- 
ernment claiming  and  exercising  such  rights  ? 
And,  if  none  can  be,  how  can  the  separate  gov- 
ernments of  the  States  maintain  and  protect  the 
powers  reserved  to  them  by  the  Constitution — 
or  the  people  of  the  several  States  maintain 
those  which  are  reserved  to  them,  and  among 
others,  the  sovereign  powers  by  which  they  or- 
dained and  established,  not  only  their  separate 
State  Constitutions  and  Governments,  but  also 
the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United 
States?  But,  if  they  have  no  constitutional 
means  of  maintaining  them  against  the  right 
claimed  by  this  Government,  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows, that  they  hold  them  at  its  pleasure  and 
discretion,  and  that  all  the  powers  of  the  sys- 
tem are  in  reality  concentrated  in  it.  It  also 
follows,  that  the  character  of  the  Government 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  139 

lias  been  changed  in  consequence,  from  a  fed- 
eral republic,  as  it  originally  came  from  the 
hands  of  its  framers,  into  a  great  national  con- 
solidated democracy.  It  has  indeed,  at  present, 
all  the  characteristics  of  the  latter,  and  not  of 
the  former,  although  it  still  retains  its  outward 
form. 

The  result  of  the  whole  of  those  causes  com- 
bined is,  that  the  North  has  acquired  a  decided 
ascendency  over  every  department  of  this  Gov- 
ernment, and  through  it  a  control  over  all  the 
powers  of  the  system.  A  single  section  gov- 
erned by  the  will  of  the  numerical  majority, 
has  now,  in  fact,  the  control  of  the  Government 
and  the  entire  powers  of  the  system.  What 
was  once  a  constitutional  federal  republic,  is 
now  converted,  in  reality,  into  one  as  absolute 
as  that  of  the  Autocrat  of  Russia,  and  as  des- 
potic in  its  tendency  as  any  absolute  govern- 
ment that  ever  existed. 

As,  then,  the  North  has  the  absolute  control 
over  the  Government,  it  is  manifest  that  on  all 
questions  between  it  and  the  South,  where 
there  is  a  diversity  of  interests,  the  interest  of 
the  latter  will  be  sacrificed  to  the  former,  how- 
ever oppressive  the  effects  may  be ;  as  the 
South  possesses  no  means  by  which  it  can  re- 


140  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

sist,  through  the  action  of  the  Government.* 
But  if  there  was  no  question  of  vital  importance 
to  the  South,  in  reference  to  which  there  was  a 
diversity  of  views  between  the  two  sections, 
this  state  of  things  might  be  endured  without 
the  hazard  of  destruction  to  the  South.  But 
such  is  not  the  fact.  There  is  a  question  of 
vital  importance  to  the  southern  section,  in 
reference  to  which  the  views  and  feelings  of  the 
two  sections  are  as  opposite  and  hostile  as  they 
can  possibly  be. 

I  refer  to  the  relation  between  the  two  races  in 
the  southern  section,  which  constitutes  a  vital 
portion  of  her  social  organization.  Every  por- 
tion of  the  North  entertains  views  and  feelings 
more  or  less  hostile  to  it.  Those  most  opposed 
and  hostile,  regard  it  as  a  sin,  and  consider  them- 
selves under  the  most  sacred  obligation  to  use 
every  effort  to  destroy  it.  Indeed,  to  the  ex- 
tent that  they  conceive  that  they  have  power, 
they  regard  themselves  as  implicated  in  the  sin, 
and  responsible  for  not  suppressing  it  by  the  use 
of  all  and  every  means.  Those  less  opposed  and 
hostile,  regarded  it  as  a  crime — an  offence 
against  humanity,  as  they  call  it ;  and,  although 
not  so  fanatical,  feel  themselves  bound  to  use 
all  efforts  to  effect  the  same  object ;  while  those 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  141 

who  are  least  opposed  and  hostile,  regard  it  as  a 
blot  and  a  stain  on  the  character  of  what  they 
call  the  Nation,  and  feel  themselves  accordingly 
bound  to  give  it  no  countenance  or  support. 
On  the  contrary,  the  southern  section  regards 
the  relation  as  one  which  cannot  be  destroyed 
without  subjecting  the  two  races  to  the  great- 
est calamity,  and  the  section  to  poverty,  deso- 
lation, and  wretchedness  ;  and  accordingly  they 
feel  bound,  by  every  consideration  of  interest 
and  safety,  to  defend  it.10 

This  hostile  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  North 
toward  the  social  organization  of  the  South  long 
lay  dormant,  and  it  only  required  some  cause  to 
act  on  those  who  felt  most  intensely  that  they 
were  responsible  for  itscontinuance,to  call  it  into 
action.  The  increasing  power  of  this  Govern- 
ment, and  of  the  control  of  the  northern  section 
over  all  its  departments,  furnished  the  cause. 
It  was  this  which  made  the  impression  on  the 
minds  of  many,  that  there  was  little  or  no  re- 
straint to  prevent  the  Government  from  doing 
whatever  it  might  choose  to  do.  This  was 
sufficient  of  itself  to  put  the  most  fanatical  por- 
tion of  the  North  in  action,  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  the  existing  relation  between  the 
two  races  in  the  South. 


142  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

The  first  organized  movement  toward  it  com- 
menced in  1835."  Then,  for  the  first  time, 
societies  were  organized,  presses  established, 
lecturers  sent  forth  to  excite  the  people  of  the 
North,  and  incendiary  publications  scattered 
over  the  whole  South,  through  the  mail.  The 
South  was  thoroughly  aroused.  Meetings  were 
held  everywhere,  and  resolutions  adopted,  call- 
ing upon  the  North  to  apply  a  remedy  to  arrest 
the  threatened  evil,  and  pledging  themselves  to 
adopt  measures  for  their  own  protection,  if  it 
was  not  arrested.  At  the  meeting  of  Congress, 
petitions  poured  in  from  the  North,  calling  upon 
Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  to  prohibit,  what  they  called, 
the  internal  slave  trade  between  the  States — 
announcing  at  the  same  time,  that  their  ulti- 
mate object  was  to  abolish  slavery,  not  only 
in  the  District,  but  in  the  States  and  through- 
out the  Union.  At  this  period,  the  number 
engaged  in  the  agitation  was  small,  and  pos- 
sessed little  or  no  personal  influence. 

Neither  party  in  Congress  had,  at  that  time, 
any  sympathy  with  them  or  their  cause.  The 
members  of  each  party  presented  their  pe- 
titions with  great  reluctance.  Nevertheless, 
small,  and  contemptible  as  the  party  then  was. 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  1 43 

both  of  the  great  parties  of  the  North  dreaded 
them.  They  felt,  that  though  small,  they  were 
organized  in  reference  to  a  subject  which  had 
a  great  and  commanding  influence  over  the 
northern  mind.  Each  party,  on  that  account, 
feared  to  oppose  their  petitions,  lest  the  oppo- 
site party  should  take  advantage  of  the  one 
who  might  do  so,  by  favoring  them.  The  effect 
was,  that  both  united  in  insisting  that  the  peti- 
tions should  be  received,  and  that  Congress 
should  take  jurisdiction  over  the  subject.  To 
justify  their  course,  they  took  the  extraordi- 
nary ground,  that  Congress  was  bound  to  re- 
ceive petitions  on  every  subject,  however  ob- 
jectionable they  might  be,  and  whether  they 
had,  or  had  not,  jurisdiction  over  the  subject. 
Those  views  prevailed  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  partially  in  the  Senate ;  and 
thus  the  party  succeeded  in  their  first  move- 
ments, in  gaining  what  they  proposed — a  posi- 
tion in  Congress,  from  which  agitation  could  be 
extended  over  the  whole  Union.  This  was  the 
commencement  of  the  agitation,  which  has 
ever  since  continued,  and  which,  as  is  now  ac- 
knowledged, has  endangered  the  Union  itself. 
As  for  myself,  I  believed  at  that  early  period, 
if  the  party  who  got  up  the  petitions  should 


144  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

succeed  in  getting  Congress  to  take  jurisdiction, 
that  agitation  would  follow,  and  that  it  would 
in  the  end,  if  not  arrested,  destroy  the  Union. 
I  then  so  expressed  myself  in  debate,  and  called 
upon  both  parties  to  take  grounds  against 
assuming  jurisdiction  ;  but  in  vain.1*  Had  my 
voice  been  heeded,  and  had  Congress  refused 
to  take  jurisdiction,  by  the  united  votes  of  all 
parties,  the  agitation  which  followed  would 
have  been  prevented,  and  the  fanatical  zeal  that 
gave  impulse  to  the  agitation,  and  which  has 
brought  us  to  our  present  perilous  condition, 
would  have  become  extinguished,  from  the  want 
of  fuel  to  feed  the  flame.  That  was  the  time  for 
the  North  to  have  shown  her  devotion  to  the 
Union ;  but,  unfortunately,  both  of  the  great 
parties  of  that  section  were  so  intent  on  obtain- 
ing or  retaining  party  ascendency,  that  all  other 
considerations  were  overlooked  or  forgotten. 

What  has  since  followed  are  but  natural  con- 
sequences. With  the  success  of  their  first  move- 
ment, this  small  fanatical  party  began  to  acquire 
strength  ;  and  with  that,  to  become  an  object 
of  courtship  to  both  the  great  parties.  The 
necessary  consequence  was,  a  further  increase 
of  power,  and  a  gradual  tainting  of  the  opinions 
of  both  the  other  parties  with  their  doctrines, 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  14$ 

until  the  infection  has  extended  over  both  ;  and 
the  great  mass  of  the  population  of  the  North, 
who,  whatever  may  be  their  opinion  of  the 
original  abolition  party,  which  still  preserves  its 
distinctive  organization,  hardly  ever  fail,  when 
it  comes  to  acting,  to  co-operate  in  carrying  out 
their  measures.  With  the  increase  of  their  in- 
fluence, they  extended  the  sphere  of  their  ac- 
tion. In  a  short  time  after  the  commencement 
of  their  first  movement,  they  had  acquired  suf- 
ficient influence  to  induce  the  legislatures  of 
most  of  the  Northern  States  to  pass  acts,  which 
in  effect  abrogated  the  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion that  provides  for  the  delivery  up  of  fugi- 
tive slaves.  Not  long  after,  petitions  followed 
to  abolish  slavery  in  forts,  magazines,  and  dock- 
yards, and  all  other  places  where  Congress  had 
exclusive  power  of  legislation.  This  was  fol- 
lowed by  petitions  and  resolutions  of  legis- 
latures of  the  Northern  States,  and  popular 
meetings,  to  exclude  the  Southern  States  from 
all  territories  acquired,  or  to  be  acquired,  and 
to  prevent  the  admission  of  any  State  hereafter 
into  the  Union,  which,  by  its  constitution,  does 
not  prohibit  slavery.  And  Congress  is  invoked 
to  do  all  this,  expressly  with  the  view  of  the 
final  abolition  of  slavery  in  fhe  States.  That 


VOL.  II.  — 10. 


146  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

has  been  avowed  to  be  the  ultimate  object 
from  the  beginning  of  the  agitation  until  the 
present  time ;  and  yet  the  great  body  of  both 
parties  of  the  North,  with  the  full  knowledge  of 
the  fact,  although  disavowing  the  abolitionists, 
have  co-operated  with  them  in  almost  all  their 
measures. 

Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  agitation,  as  far 
as  it  has  yet  advanced.  Now  I  ask,  Senators, 
what  is  there  to  prevent  its  further  progress, 
until  it  fulfils  the  ultimate  end  proposed,  unless 
some  decisive  measure  should  be  adopted  to 
prevent  it  ?  Has  any  one  of  the  causes,  which 
has  added  to  its  increase  from  its  original  small 
and  contemptible  beginning  until  it  has  attained 
its  present  magnitude,  diminished  in  force?  Is 
the  original  cause  of  the  movement — that  slav- 
ery is  a  sin,  and  ought  to  be  suppressed — 
weaker  now  than  at  the  commencement  ?  Or  is 
the  abolition  party  less  numerous  or  influential, 
or  have  they  less  influence  with,  or  less  control 
over  the  two  great  parties  of  the  North  in  elec- 
tions? Or  has  the  South  greater  means  of  in- 
fluencing or  controlling  the  movements  of  this 
Government  now,  than  it  had  when  the  agitation 
commenced  ?  To  all  these  questions  but  one 
answer  can  be  given :  No,  no,  no.  The  very 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  1 47 

reverse  is  true.  Instead  of  being  weaker,  all 
the  elements  in  favor  of  agitation  are  stronger 
now  than  they  were  in  1835,  when  it  first  com- 
menced, while  all  the  elements  of  influence  on 
the  part  of  the  South  are  weaker.  Unless  some- 
thing decisive  is  done,  I  again  ask,  what  is  to 
stop  this  agitation,  before  the  great  and  final 
object  at  which  it  aims — the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  States — is  consummated?  Is  it,  then, 
not  certain,  that  if  something  is  not  done  to 
arrest  it,  the  South  will  be  forced  to  choose 
between  abolition  and  secession  ?  Indeed,  as 
events  are  now  moving,  it  will  not  require  the 
South  to  secede,  in  order  to  dissolve  the  Union. 
Agitation  will  of  itself  effect  it,  of  which  its  past 
history  furnishes  abundant  proof — as  I  shall 
next  proceed  to  show. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  disunion 
can  be  effected  by  a  single  blow.  The  cords 
which  bound  these  States  together  in  one  com- 
mon Union,  are  far  too  numerous  and  powerful 
for  that.  Disunion  must  be  the  work  of  time. 
It  is  only  through  a  long  process,  and  succes- 
sively, that  the  cords  can  be  snapped,  until  the 
whole  fabric  falls  asunder.  Already  the  agitation 
of  the  slavery  question  has  snapped  some  of 
the  most  important,  and  has  greatly  weakened 
all  the  others,  as  I  shall  proceed  to  show. 


148  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

The  cords  that  bind  the  States  together  are 
not  only  many,  but  various  in  character.  Some 
are  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical ;  some  political ; 
others  social.  Some  appertain  to  the  benefit 
conferred  by  the  Union,  and  others  to  the  feel- 
ing of  duty  and  obligation. 

The  strongest  of  those  of  a  spiritual  and 
ecclesiastical  nature,  consisted  in  the  unity  of 
the  great  religious  denominations,  all  of  which 
originally  embraced  the  whole  Union.  All 
these  denominations,  with  the  exception,  per- 
haps, of  the  Catholics,  were  organized  very 
much  upon  the  principle  of  our  political  insti- 
tutions. Beginning  with  smaller  meetings,  cor- 
responding with  the  political  divisions  of  the 
country,  their  organization  terminated  in  one 
great  central  assemblage,  corresponding  very 
much  with  the  character  of  Congress.  At  these 
meetings  the  principal  clergymen  and  lay  mem- 
bers of  the  respective  denominations  from  all 
parts  of  the  Union,  met  to  transact  business 
relating  to  their  common  concerns.  It  was  not 
confined  to  what  appertained  to  the  doctrines 
and  discipline  of  the  respective  denominations, 
but  extended  to  plans  for  disseminating  the 
Bible — establishing  missions,  distributing  tracts 
— and  of  establishing  presses  for  the  publication 


THE    SLAVERY  QUESTION.  149 

of  tracts,  newspapers,  and  periodicals,  with  a 
view  of  diffusing  religious  information — and  for 
the  support  of  their  respective  doctrines  and 
creeds.  All  this  combined  contributed  greatly 
to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  the  Union.  The 
ties  which  held  each  denomination  together 
formed  a  strong  cord  to  hold  the  whole  Union 
together ,  but,  powerful  as  they  were,  they  have 
not  been  able  to  resist  the  explosive  effect  of 
slavery  agitation. 

The  first  of  these  cords  which  snapped,  under 
its  explosive  force,  was  that  of  the  powerful 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.13  The  numerous 
and  strong  ties  which  held  it  together,  are  all 
broken,  and  its  unity  is  gone.  They  now  form 
separate  churches ;  and,  instead  of  that  feeling 
of  attachment  and  devotion  to  the  interests  of 
the  whole  church  which  was  formerly  felt, 
they  are  now  arrayed  into  two  hostile  bodies, 
engaged  in  litigation  about  what  was  formerly 
their  common  property. 

The  next  cord  that  snapped  was  that  of  the 
Baptists — one  of  the  largest  and  most  respect- 
able of  the  denominations.  That  of  the  Pres- 
byterian is  not  entirely  snapped,  but  some  of 
its  strands  have  given  way.  That  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  great 


150  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

Protestant  denominations  which  remains  un- 
broken and  entire. 

The  strongest  cord,  of  a  political  character, 
consists  of  the  many  and  powerful  ties  that 
have  held  together  the  two  great  parties  which 
have,  with  some  modifications,  existed  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Government.  They  both  ex- 
tended to  every  portion  of  the  Union,  and 
strongly  contributed  to  hold  all  its  parts  to- 
gether. But  this  powerful  cord  has  fared  no 
better  than  the  spiritual.  It  resisted,  for  a  long 
time,  the  explosive  tendency  of  the  agitation, 
but  has  finally  snapped  under  its  force — if  not 
entirely,  in  a  great  measure.  Nor  is  there  one 
of  the  remaining  cords  which  has  not  been 
greatly  weakened.  To  this  extent  the  Union 
has  already  been  destroyed  by  agitation,  in  the 
only  way  it  can  be,  by  sundering  and  weaken- 
ing the  cords  which  bind  it  together. 

If  the  agitation  goes  on,  the  same  force,  act- 
ing with  increased  intensity,  as  has  been  shown, 
will  finally  snap  every  cord,  when  nothing  will 
be  left  to  hold  the  States  together  except  force. 
But,  surely,  that  can,  with  no  propriety  of  lan- 
guage, be  called  a  Union,  when  the  only  means 
by  which  the  weaker  is  held  connected  with 
the  stronger  portion  is  force.  It  may,  indeed, 


THE    SLAVERY  QUESTION.  l$l 

keep  them  connected  ;  but  the  connection  will 
partake  much  more  of  the  character  of  subju- 
gation, on  the  part  of  the  weaker  to  the  stronger, 
than  the  union  of  free,  independent  States,  in 
one  confederation,  as  they  stood  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  Government,  and  which  only  is 
worthy  of  the  sacred  name  of  Union. 

Having  now,  Senators,  explained  what  it  is 
that  endangers  the  Union,  and  traced  it  to  its 
cause,  and  explained  its  nature  and  character, 
the  question  again  recurs,  How  can  the  Union 
be  saved  ?  To  this  I  answer,  there  is  but  one 
way  by  which  it  can  be,  and  that  is  by  adopting 
such  measures  as  will  satisfy  the  States  be- 
longing to  the  southern  section,  that  they  can 
remain  in  the  Union  consistently  with  their 
honor  and  their  safety.  There  is,  again,  only 
one  way  by  which  this  can  be  effected,  and  that 
is  by  removing  the  causes  by  which  this  belief 
has  been  produced.  Do  this,  and  discontent 
will  cease,  harmony  and  kind  feelings  between 
the  sections  be  restored,  and  every  apprehen- 
sion of  danger  to  the  Union  be  removed.  The 
question,  then,  is,  How  can  this  be  done  ?  But, 
before  I  undertake  to  answer  this  question,  I 
propose  to  show  by  what  the  Union  cannot  be 
saved. 


152  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  saved  by  eulogies  on  the 
Union,  however  splendid  or  numerous.  The 
cry  of  "  Union,  Union,  the  glorious  Union ! " 
can  no  more  prevent  disunion  than  the  cry  of 
"  Health,  health,  glorious  health !  "  on  the  part 
of  the  physician,  can  save  a  patient  lying  dan- 
gerously ill.  So  long  as  the  Union,  instead  of 
being  regarded  as  a  protector,  is  regarded  in  the 
opposite  character,  by  not  much  less  than  a 
majority  of  the  States,  it  will  be  in  vain  to  at- 
tempt to  conciliate  them  by  pronouncing  eulo- 
gies on  it. 

Besides,  this  cry  of  Union  comes  commonly 
from  those  whom  we  cannot  believe  to  be 
sincere.  It  usually  comes  from  our  assailants. 
But  we  cannot  believe  them  to  be  sincere  ;  for, 
if  they  loved  the  Union,  they  would  necessa- 
rily be  devoted  to  the  Constitution.  It  made 
the  Union, — and  to  destroy  the  Constitution 
would  be  to  destroy  the  Union.  But  the  only 
reliable  and  certain  evidence  of  devotion  to  the 
Constitution  is  to  abstain,  on  the  one  hand, 
from  violating  it,  and  to  repel,  on  the  other,  all 
attempts  to  violate  it.  It  is  only  by  faithfully 
performing  these  high  duties  that  the  Constitu- 
tion can  be  preserved,  and  with  it  the  Union. 

But  how  stands  the  profession  of  devotion  to 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  153 

the  Union  by  our  assailants,  when  brought  to 
this  test  ?  Have  they  abstained  from  violating 
the  Constitution?  Let  the  many  acts  passed 
by  the  Northern  States  to  set  aside  and  annul 
the  clause  of  the  Constitution  providing  for  the 
delivery  up  of  fugitive  slaves  answer.  I  cite 
this,  not  that  it  is  the  only  instance  (for  there 
are  many  others),  but  because  the  violation  in 
this  particular  is  too  notorious  and  palpable  to 
be  denied.  Again  :  Have  they  stood  forth 
faithfully  to  repel  violations  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ?  Let  their  course  in  reference  to  the 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  which  was 
commenced  and  has  been  carried  on  for  fifteen 
years,  avowedly  for  the  purpose  of  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  States — an  object  all  acknowl- 
edged to  be  unconstitutional, — answer.  Let 
them  show  a  single  instance,  during  this  long 
period,  in  which  they  have  denounced  the 
agitators  or  their  attempts  to  effect  what  is 
admitted  to  be  unconstitutional,  or  a  single 
measure  which  they  have  brought  forward  for 
that  purpose.  How  can  we,  with  all  these  facts 
before  us,  believe  that  they  are  sincere  in  their 
profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union,  or  avoid 
believing  their  profession  is  but  intended  to  in- 
crease the  vigor  of  their  assaults  and  to  weaken 
the  force  of  our  resistance  ? 


154  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

Nor  can  we  regard  the  profession  of  devotion 
to  the  Union,  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  not 
our  assailants,  as  sincere,  when  they  pronounce 
eulogies  upon  the  Union,  evidently  with  the 
intent  of  charging  us  with  disunion,  without 
uttering  one  word  of  denunciation  against  our 
assailants.  If  friends  of  the  Union,  their  course 
should  be  to  unite  with  us  in  repelling  these 
assaults,  and  denouncing  the  authors  as  ene- 
mies of  the  Union.  Why  they  avoid  this,  and 
pursue  the  course  they  do,  it  is  for  them  to 
explain. 

Nor  can  the  Union  be  saved  by  invoking  the 
name  of  the  illustrious  Southerner  whose  mor- 
tal remains  repose  on  the  western  bank  of 
the  Potomac.  He  was  one  of  us, — a  slave- 
holder and  a  planter.  We  have  studied  his 
history,  and  find  nothing  in  it  to  justify  sub- 
mission to  wrong.  On  the  contrary,  his  great 
fame  rests  on  the  solid  foundation,  that,  while 
he  was  careful  to  avoid  doing  wrong  to  others, 
he  was  prompt  and  decided  in  repelling  wrong. 
I  trust  that,  in  this  respect,  we  profited  by  his 
example. 

Nor  can  we  find  any  thing  in  his  history  to 
deter  us  from  seceding  from  the  Union,  should 
it  fail  to  fulfil  the  objects  for  which  it  was  insti- 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  I  55 

tuted,  by  being  permanently  and  hopelessly 
converted  into  the  means  of  oppressing  instead 
of  protecting  us.  On  the  contrary,  we  find 
much  in  his  example  to  encourage  us,  should 
we  be  forced  to  the  extremity  of  deciding  be- 
tween submission  and  disunion. 

There  existed  then,  as  well  as  now,  a  union 
— between  the  parent  country  and  her  colo- 
nies. It  was  a  union  that  had  much  to  endear 
it  to  the  people  of  the  colonies.  Under  its  pro- 
tecting and  superintending  care,  the  colonies 
were  planted  and  grew  up  and  prospered, 
through  a  long  course  of  years,  until  they  be- 
came populous  and  wealthy.  Its  benefits  were 
not  limited  to  them.  Their  extensive  agricul- 
tural and  other  productions,  gave  birth  to  a 
flourishing  commerce,  which  richly  rewarded 
the  parent  country  for  the  trouble  and  expense 
of  establishing  and  protecting  them.  Washing- 
ton was  born  and  grew  up  to  manhood  under 
that  Union.  He  acquired  his  early  distinction  in 
its  service,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  he  was  devotedly  attached  to  it.  But  his 
devotion  was  a  national  one.  He  was  attached 
to  it,  not  as  an  end,  but  as  a  means  to  an  end. 
When  it  failed  to  fulfil  its  end,  and,  instead  of 
affording  protection,  was  converted  into  the 


156  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

means  of  oppressing  the  colonies,  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  draw  his  sword,  and  head  the  great 
movement  by  which  that  union  was  forever 
severed,  and  the  independence  of  these  States 
established.  This  was  the  great  and  crowning 
glory  of  his  life,  which  has  spread  his  fame  over 
the  whole  globe,  and  will  transmit  it  to  the 
latest  posterity. 

Nor  can  the  plan  proposed  by  the  distin- 
guished Senator  from  Kentucky,  nor  that  of 
the  administration,  save  the  Union.14  I  shall 
pass  by,  without  remark,  the  plan  proposed  by 
the  Senator.  I,  however,  assure  the  distin- 
guished and  able  Senator,  that,  in  taking  this 
course,  no  disrespect  whatever  is  intended  to 
him  or  to  his  plan.  I  have  adopted  it  because 
so  many  Senators  of  distinguished  abilities,  who 
were  present  when  he  delivered  his  speech,11 
and  explained  his  plan,  and  who  were  fully 
capable  to  do  justice  to  the  side  they  support, 
have  replied  to  him.  *  *  * 16 

Having  now  shown  what  cannot  save  the 
Union,  I  return  to  the  question  with  which  I 
commenced,  How  can  the  Union  be  saved? 
There  is  but  one  way  by  which  it  can  with  any 
certainty ;  and  that  is,  by  a  full  and  final  settle- 
ment, on  the  principle  of  justice,  of  all  the  ques- 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  1  57 

tions  at  issue  between  the  two  sections.  The 
South  asks  for  justice,  simple  justice,  and  less 
she  ought  not  to  take.  She  has  no  compromise 
to  offer,  but  the  Constitution ;  and  no  conces- 
sion or  surrender  to  make.  She  has  already 
surrendered  so  much  that  she  has  little  left  to 
surrender.  Such  a  settlement  would  go  to  the 
root  of  the  evil,  and  remove  all  cause  of  dis- 
content, by  satisfying  the  South  that  she  could 
remain  honorably  and  safely  in  the  Union,  and 
thereby  restore  the  harmony  and  fraternal  feel- 
ings between  the  sections,  which  existed  ante- 
rior to  the  Missouri  agitation.  Nothing  else  can, 
with  any  certainty,  finally  and  forever  settle  the 
question  at  issue,  terminate  agitation,  and  save 
the  Union. 

But  can  this  be  done?  Yes,  easily;  not  by 
the  weaker  party,  for  it  can,  of  itself  do  nothing, 
— not  even  protect  itself — but  by  the  stronger. 
The  North  has  only  to  will  it  to  accomplish  it 
— to  do  justice  by  conceding  to  the  South  an 
equal  right  in  the  acquired  territory,  and  to  do 
her  duty  by  causing  the  stipulations  relative  to 
fugitive  slaves  to  be  faithfully  fulfilled,  to  cease 
the  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  and  to  pro- 
vide for  the  insertion  of  a  provision  in  the  Con- 
stitution, by  an  amendment,  which  will  restore 


I $8  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

to  the  South,  in  substance,  the  power  she  pos- 
sessed of  protecting  herself,  before  the  equi- 
librium between  the  sections  was  destroyed  by 
the  action  of  this  Government."  There  will  be 
no  difficulty  in  devising  such  a  provision — one 
that  will  protect  the  South,  and  which,  at  the 
same  time,  will  improve  and  strengthen  the 
Government,  instead  of  impairing  and  weaken- 
ing it. 

But  will  the  North  agree  to  this?  It  is  for 
her  to  answer  the  question.  But,  I  will  say, 
she  cannot  refuse,  if  she  has  half  the  love  for 
the  Union  which  she  professes  to  have,  or  with- 
out justly  exposing  herself  to  the  charge  that 
her  love  of  power  and  aggrandizement  is  far 
greater  than  her  love  of  the  Union.  At  all 
events  the  responsibility  of  saving  the  Union 
rests  on  the  North,  and  not  on  the  South.  The 
South  cannot  save  it  by  any  act  of  hers,  and 
the  North  may  save  it  without  any  sacrifice 
whatever,  unless  to  do  justice,  and  to  perform 
her  duties  under  the  Constitution,  should  be 
regarded  by  her  as  a  sacrifice. 

It  is  time,  Senators,  that  there  should  be  an 
open  and  manly  avowal  on  all  sides,  as  to  what 
is  intended  to  be  done.  If  the  question  is  not 
now  settled,  it  is  uncertain  whether  it  ever  can 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION.  I  $9 

hereafter  be  ;  and  we,  as  the  representatives  of 
the  States  of  this  Union,  regarded  as  govern- 
ments, should  come  to  a  distinct  understanding 
as  to  our  respective  views,  in  order  to  ascertain 
whether  the  great  questions  at  issue  can  be 
settled  or  not.  If  you,  who  represent  the 
stronger  portion,  cannot  agree  to  settle  on  the 
broad  principle  of  justice  and  duty,  say  so  ;  and 
let  the  States  we  both  represent  agree  to  sepa- 
rate and  part  in  peace.  If  you  are  unwilling 
we  should  part  in  peace,  tell  us  so,  and  we  shall 
know  what  to  do,  when  you  reduce  the  ques- 
tion to  submission  or  resistance.  If  you  remain 
silent,  you  will  compel  us  to  infer  by  your  acts 
what  you  intend.  In  that  case,  California  will 
become  the  test  question.  If  you  admit  her, 
under  all  the  difficulties  that  oppose  her  admis- 
sion, you  compel  us  to  infer  that  you  intend  to 
exclude  us  from  the  whole  of  the  acquired  ter- 
ritories, with  the  intention  of  destroying,  irre- 
trievably, the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sec- 
tions. We  would  be  blind  not  to  perceive  in 
that  case,  that  your  real  objects  are  power  and 
aggrandizement,  and  infatuated,  not  to  act 
accordingly. 

I  have  now,  Senators,  done  my  duty  in  ex- 
pressing my  opinions  fully,  freely  and  candidly, 


l6o  JOHN  C.    CALHOUN. 

on  this  solemn  occasion.  In  doing  so,  I  have 
been  governed  by  the  motives  which  have  gov- 
erned me  in  all  the  stages  of  the  agitation  of 
the  slavery  question  since  its  commencement. 
I  have  exerted  myself,  during  the  whole  period, 
to  arrest  it,  with  the  intention  of  saving  the 
Union,  if  it  could  be  done;  and  if  it  could  not, 
to  save  the  section  where  it  has  pleased  Provi- 
dence to  cast  my  lot,  and  which  I  sincerely  be- 
lieve has  justice  and  the  Constitution  on  its  side. 
Having  faithfully  done  my  duty  to  the  best  of 
my  ability,  both  to  the  Union  and  my  section, 
throughout  this  agitation,  I  shall  have  the  con- 
solation, let  what  will  come,  that  I  am  free 
from  all  responsibility.18 


DANIEL  WEBSTER,* 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS.1 
(BORN,  1782,  DIED,  1852.) 

ON  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION;  SENATE 

OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,    MARCH    7,    1850.* 

MR.  PRESIDENT  : 

I  wish  to  speak  to-day,  not  as  a  Massachu- 
setts man,  nor  as  a  northern  man,  but  as  an 
American,  and  a  member  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  fortunate  that  there  is  a 
Senate  of  the  United  States ;  a  body  not  yet 
moved  from  its  propriety,  nor  lost  to  a  just 
sense  of  its  own  dignity  and  its  own  high  respon- 
sibilities, and  a  body  to  which  the  country  looks, 
with  confidence,  for  wise,  moderate,  patriotic, 
and  healing  counsels.  It  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  we  live  in  the  midst  of  strong  agitations  and 
are  surrounded  by  very  considerable  dangers  to 
our  institutions  and  government.  The  impris- 
oned winds  are  let  loose.  The  East,  the  North, 
and  the  stormy  South  combine  to  throw  the 
whole  sea  into  commotion,  to  toss  its  billows  to 

*  For  notes  on  Webster,  see  Appendix,  p.  388= 

VOL.  II.— II.  161 


162  DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

the  skies,  and  disclose  its  profoundest  depths.  I 
do  not  affect  to  regard  myself,  Mr.  President,  as 
holding,  or  fit  to  hold,  the  helm  in  this  combat 
with  the  political  elements  ;  but  I  have  a  duty 
to  perform,  and  I  mean  to  perform  it  with 
fidelity,  not  without  a  sense  of  existing  dangers, 
but  not  without  hope.  I  have  a  part  to  act, 
not  for  my  own  security  or  safety,  for  I  am 
looking  out  for  no  fragment  upon  which  to  float 
away  from  the  wreck,  if  wreck  there  must  be, 
but  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  the  preserve 
tion  of  all ;  and  there  is  that  which  will  keep 
me  to  my  duty  during  this  struggle,  whether 
the  sun  and  the  stars  shall  appear  for  many 
days.  I  speak  to-day  for  the  preservation  of 
the  Union.  "  Hear  me  for  my  cause."  I  speak 
to-day  out  of  a  solicitous  and  anxious  heart,  for 
the  restoration  to  the  country  of  that  quiet  and 
that  harmony  which  make  the  blessings  of  this 
Union  so  rich,  and  so  dear  to  us  all.  These  are 
the  topics  that  I  propose  to  myself  to  discuss ; 
these  are  the  motives,  and  the  sole  motives, 
that  influence  me  in  the  wish  to  communicate 
my  opinions  to  the  Senate  and  the  country ;  and 
if  I  can  do  any  thing,  however  little,  for  the 
promotion  of  these  ends,  I  shall  have  accom- 
plished all  that  I  expect. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     163 

*  *  *  3  \Ve  all  know,  sir,  that  slavery  has  ex- 
isted in  the  world  from  time  immemorial.  There 
was  slavery  in  the  earliest  periods  of  history, 
among  the  Oriental  nations.  There  was  slavery 
among  the  Jews  ;  the  theocratic  government  of 
that  people  issued  no  injunction  against  it.  There 
was  slavery  among  the  Greeks.  *  *  * 4  At 
the  introduction  of  Christianity,  the  Roman 
world  was  full  of  slaves,  and  I  suppose  there  is 
to  be  found  no  injunction  against  that  relation 
between  man  and  man  in  the  teachings  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  or  of  any  of  his  apostles. 
*  *  * 5  Now,  sir,  upon  the  general  nature 
and  influence  of  slavery  there  exists  a  wide  dif- 
ference of  opinion  between  the  northern  portion 
of  this  country  and  the  southern.  It  is  said  on 
the  one  side,  that,  although  not  the  subject  of 
any  injunction  or  direct  prohibition  in  the  New 
Testament,  slavery  is  a  wrong ;  that  it  is  found- 
ed merely  in  the  right  of  the  strongest ;  and 
that  it  is  an  oppression,  like  unjust  wars,  like 
all  those  conflicts  by  which  a  powerful  nation 
subjects  a  weaker  to  its  will ;  and  that,  in  its 
nature,  whatever  may  be  said  of  it  in  the  modi- 
fications which  have  taken  place,  it  is  not  accord- 
ing to  the  meek  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  not 
"  kindly  affectioned  " ;  it  does  not  "  seek  anoth- 


1 64  DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

er's,  and  not  its  own  ";  it  does  not  "  let  the  op- 
pressed go  free."  These  are  sentiments  that  are 
cherished,  and  of  late  with  greatly  augmented 
force,  among  the  people  of  the  Northern  States. 
They  have  taken  hold  of  the  religious  sentiment 
of  that  part  of  the  country,  as  they  have,  more 
or  less,  taken  hold  of  the  religious  feelings  of  a 
considerable  portion  of  mankind.  The  South 
upon  the  other  side,  having  been  accustomed 
to  this  relation  between  the  two  races  all  their 
lives ;  from  their  birth,  having  been  taught,  in 
general,  to  treat  the  subjects  of  this  bondage 
with  care  and  kindness,  and  I  believe,  in  gene- 
ral, feeling  great  kindness  for  them,  have  not 
taken  the  view  of  the  subject  which  I  have 
mentioned.  There  are  thousands  of  religious 
men,  with  consciences  as  tender  as  any  of  their 
brethren  at  the  North,  who  do  not  see  the  un- 
lawfulness of  slavery ;  and  there  are  more  thou- 
sands, perhaps,  that,  whatsoever  they  may  think 
of  it  in  its  origin,  and  as  a  matter  depending  upon 
natural  rights,  yet  take  things  as  they  are,  and, 
finding  slavery  to  be  an  established  relation  of  the 
society  in  which  they  live,  can  see  no  way  in 
which,  let  their  opinions  on  the  abstract  ques- 
tion be  what  they  may,  it  is  in  the  power 
of  this  generation  to  relieve  themselves  from 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     165 

this  relation.  And  candor  obliges  me  to  say, 
that  I  believe  they  are  just  as  conscientious 
many  of  them,  and  the  religious  people,  all  of 
them,  as  they  are  at  the  North  who  hold  differ- 
ent opinions.  *  *  *  ° 

There  are  men  who,  with  clear  perceptions, 
as  they  think,  of  their  own  duty,  do  not  see 
how  too  eager  a  pursuit  of  one  duty  may  in- 
volve them  in  the  violation  of  others,  or  how 
too  warm  an  embracement  of  one  truth  may 
lead  to  a  disregard  of  other  truths  just  as  im- 
portant. As  I  heard  it  stated  strongly,  not 
many  days  ago,  these  persons  are  disposed  to 
mount  upon  some  particular  duty,  as  upon 
a  war-horse,  and  to  drive  furiously  on  and  upon 
and  over  all  other  duties  that  may  stand  in  the 
way.  There  are  men  who,  in  reference  to  dis- 
putes of  that  sort,  are  of  opinion  that  human 
duties  may  be  ascertained  with  the  exactness  of 
mathematics.  They  deal  with  morals  as  with 
mathematics  ;  and  they  think  what  is  right  may 
be  distinguished  from  what  is  wrong  with  the 
precision  of  an  algebraic  equation.  They  have, 
therefore,  none  too  much  charity  toward  others 
who  differ  from  them.  They  are  apt,  too,  to 
think  that  nothing  is  good  but  what  is  per- 
fect, and  that  there  are  no  compromises  or 


1 66  DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

modifications  to  be  made  in  consideration  of 
difference  of  opinion  or  in  deference  to  other 
men's  judgment.  If  their  perspicacious  vision 
enables  them  to  detect  a  spot  on  the  face  of 
the  sun,  they  think  that  a  good  reason  why  the 
sun  should  be  struck  down  from  heaven.7  They 
prefer  the  chance  of  running  into  utter  darkness 
to  living  in  heavenly  light,  if  that  heavenly 
light  be  not  absolutely  without  any  imperfec- 
tion. *  *  *8 

But  we  must  view  things  as  they  are.  Slavery 
does  exist  in  the  United  States.  It  did  exist 
in  the  States  before  the  adoption  of  this  Con- 
stitution, and  at  that  time.  Let  us,  therefore, 
consider  for  a  moment  what  was  the  state 
of  sentiment,  North  and  South,  in  regard  to 
slavery, — in  regard  to  slavery,  at  the  time 
this  Constitution  was  adopted.  A  remarkable 
change  has  taken  place  since  ;  but  what  did  the 
wise  and  great  men  of  all  parts  of  the  country 
think  of  slavery  then  ?  In  what  estimation  did 
they  hold  it  at  the  time  when  this  Constitution 
was  adopted  ?  It  will  be  found,  sir,  if  we  will 
carry  ourselves  by  historical  research  back  to 
that  day,  and  ascertain  men's  opinions  by  au- 
thentic records  still  existing  among  us,  that 
there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion  between 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     l6? 

the  North  and  the  South  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery.  It  will  be  found  that  both  parts  of 
the  country  held  it  equally  an  evil,  a  moral  and 
political  evil.  It  will  not  be  found  that,  either 
at  the  North  or  at  the  South,  there  was  much, 
though  there  was  some,  invective  against 
slavery  as  inhuman  and  cruel.  The  great 
ground  of  objection  to  it  was  political ;  that  it 
weakened  the  social  fabric  ;  that,  taking  the 
place  of  free  labor,  society  became  less  strong 
and  labor  less  productive ;  and  therefore  we 
find  from  all  the  eminent  men  of  the  time  the 
clearest  expression  of  their  opinion  that  slavery 
is  an  evil.  They  ascribed  its  existence  here, 
not  without  truth,  and  not  without  some  acerbi- 
ty of  temper  and  force  of  language,  to  the  in- 
jurious policy  of  the  mother  country,  who,  to 
favor  the  navigator,  had  entailed  these  evils 
upon  the  colonies.  *  *  *9  You  observe,  sir, 
that  the  term  slave,  or  slavery,  is  not  used 
in  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution  does 
not  require  that  "  fugitive  slaves  "  shall  be  de- 
livered up.  It  requires  that  persons  held  to 
service  in  one  State,  and  escaping  into  another, 
shall  be  delivered  up.  Mr.  Madison  opposed 
the  introduction  of  the  term  slave,  or  slavery, 
into  the  Constitution  ;  for  he  said,  that  he  did 


168  DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

not  wish  to  see  it  recognized  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  of  America  that 
there  could  be  property  in  men.  *  *  * 10 

Here  we  may  pause.  There  was,  if  not  an  entire 
unanimity,  a  general  concurrence  of  sentiment 
running  through  the  whole  community,  and 
especially  entertained  by  the  eminent  men  of 
all  parts  of  the  country.  But  soon  a  change 
began,  at  the  North  and  the  South,  and  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  showed  itself ;  the  North  grow- 
ing much  more  warm  and  strong  against 
slavery,  and  the  South  growing  much  more 
warm  and  strong  in  its  support.  Sir,  there  is 
no  generation  of  mankind  whose  opinions  are 
not  subject  to  be  influenced  by  what  appear  to 
them  to  be  their  present  emergent  and  exigent 
interests.  I  impute  to  the  South  no  particu- 
larly selfish  view  in  the  change  which  has  come 
over  her.  I  impute  to  her  certainly  no  dis- 
honest view.  All  that  has  happened  has  been 
natural.  It  has  followed  those  causes  which  al- 
ways influence  the  human  mind  and  operate 
upon  it.  What,  then,  have  been  the  causes 
which  have  created  so  new  a  feeling  in  favor  of 
slavery  in  the  South,  which  have  changed  the 
whole  nomenclature  of  the  South  on  that  sub- 
ject, so  that,  from  being  thought  and  described  in 
the  terms  I  have  mentioned  and  will  not  repeat, 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND   THE    UNION.    169 

it  has  now  become  an  institution,  a  cherished 
institution,  in  that  quarter ;  no  evil,  no  scourge, 
but  a  great  religious,  social,  and  moral  blessing, 
as  I  think  I  have  heard  it  latterly  spoken  of  ? 
I  suppose  this,  sir,  is  owing  to  the  rapid  growth 
and  sudden  extension  of  the  cotton  planta- 
tions of  the  South.  So  far  as  any  motive  con- 
sistent with  honor,  justice,  and  general  judg- 
ment could  act,  it  was  the  cotton  interest  that 
gave  a  new  desire  to  promote  slavery,  to  spread 
it,  and  to  use  its  labor. 

I  again  say  that  this  change  was  produced 
by  causes  which  must  always  produce  like  ef- 
fects. The  whole  interest  of  the  South  became 
connected,  more  or  less,  with  the  extension  of 
slavery.  If  we  look  back  to  the  history  of  the 
commerce  of  this  country  in  the  early  years  of 
this  government,  what  were  our  exports  ?  Cot- 
ton was  hardly,  or  but  to  a  very  limited  extent, 
known.  In  1791  the  first  parcel  of  cotton  of 
the  growth  of  the  United  States  was  exported, 
and  amounted  only  to  19,200  pounds.  It  has 
gone  on  increasing  rapidly,  until  the  whole  crop 
may  now,  perhaps,  in  a  season  of  great  product 
and  high  prices,  amount  to  a  hundred  millions 
of  dollars.  In  the  years  I  have  mentioned, 
there  was  more  of  wax,  more  of  indigo,  more 
of  rice,  more  of  almost  every  article  of  export 


DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

from  the  South,  than  of  cotton.  When  Mr. 
Jay  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1794  with  Eng- 
land, it  is  evident  from  the  Twelfth  Article  of 
the  Treaty,  which  was  suspended  by  the  Senate, 
that  he  did  not  know  that  cotton  was  exported 
at  all  from  the  United  States. 

#  *  %  *  *  *  *  u 
Sir,  there  is  not  so  remarkable  a  chapter  in 
our  history  of  political  events,  political  parties, 
and  political  men  as  is  afforded  by  this  admis- 
sion of  a  new  slave-holding  territory,  so  vast 
that  a  bird  cannot  fly  over  it  in  a  week.  New 
England,  as  I  have  said,  with  some  of  her  own 
votes,  supported  this  measure.  Three-fourths 
of  the  votes  of  liberty-loving  Connecticut  were 
given  for  it  in  the  other  house,  and  one  half 
here.  There  was  one  vote  for  it  from  Maine 
but,  I  am  happy  to  say,  not  the  vote  of  the 
honorable  member  who  addressed  the  Senate 
the  day  before  yesterday,12  and  who  was  then 
a  Representative  from  Maine  in  the  House  of 
Representatives ;  but  there  was  one  vote  from 
Maine,  ay,  and  there  was  one  vote  for  it  from 
Massachusetts,13  given  by  a  gentleman  then  rep- 
resenting, and  now  living  in,  the  district  in 
which  the  prevalence  of  Free  Soil  sentiment 
for  a  couple  of  years  or  so  has  defeated  the 
choice  of  any  member  to  represent  it  in  Con- 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION.      I /I 

gress.14  Sir,  that  body  of  Northern  and  Eastern 
men  who  gave  those  votes  at  that  time  are  now 
seen  taking  upon  themselves,  in  the  nomencla- 
ture of  politics,  the  appellation  of  the  Northern 
Democracy.15  They  undertook  to  wield  the 
destinies  of  this  empire,  if  I  may  give  that 
name  to  a  Republic,  and  their  policy  was,  and 
they  persisted  in  it,  to  bring  into  this  country 
and  under  this  government  all  the  territory 
they  could.  They  did  it,  in  the  case  of  Texas, 
under  pledges,  absolute  pledges,  to  the  slave 
interest,  and  they  afterwards  lent  their  aid  in 
bringing  in  these  new  conquests,  to  take  their 
chance  for  slavery  or  freedom.  My  honorable 
friend  from  Georgia,16  in  March,  1847,  moved 
the  Senate  to  declare  that  the  war  ought  not 
to  be  prosecuted  for  the  conquest  of  territory, 
or  for  the  dismemberment  of  Mexico.  The 
whole  of  the  Northern  Democracy  voted  against 
it.  He  did  not  get  a  vote  from  them.  It 
suited  the  patriotic  and  elevated  sentiments  of 
the  Northern  Democracy  to  bring  in  a  world 
from  among  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  Cali- 
fornia and  New  Mexico,  or  any  other  part  of 
Mexico,  and  then  quarrel  about  it ;  to  bring  it 
in,  and  then  endeavor  to  put  upon  it  the  saving 
grace  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  There  were  two 
eminent  and  highly  respectable  gentlemen  from 


1 72  DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

the  North  and  East,  then  leading  gentlemen  in 
the  Senate  (I  refer,  and  I  do  so  with  entire 
respect,  for  I  entertain  for  both  of  those  gen- 
tlemen, in  general,  high  regard,  to  Mr.  Dix  of 
New  York  and  Mr.  Niles  of  Connecticut),  who 
both  voted  for  the  admission  of  Texas.  They 
would  not  have  that  vote  any  other  way  than 
as  it  stood  ;  and  they  would  have  it  as  it  did 
stand.  I  speak  of  the  vote  upon  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas.  Those  two  gentlemen  would 
have  the  resolution  of  annexation  just  as  it  is, 
without  amendment ;  and  they  voted  for  it 
just  as  it  is,  and  their  eyes  were  all  open  to  its 
true  character.  The  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina  who  addressed  us  the  other  day 
was  then  Secretary  of  State.  His  correspond- 
ence with  Mr.  Murphy,  the  Charge  d'Affaires 
of  the  United  States  in  Texas,  had  been  pub- 
lished. That  correspondence  was  all  before 
those  gentlemen,  and  the  Secretary  had  the 
boldness  and  candor  to  avow  in  that  corre- 
spondence, that  the  great  object  sought  by  the 
annexation  of  Texas  was  to  strengthen  the 
slave  interest  of  the  South.  Why,  sir,  he  said 
so  in  so  many  words. 

Mr.  Calhoun.  Will  the  honorable  Senator 
permit  me  to  interrupt  him  for  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  Webster.     Certainly. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION.      173 

Mr.  Calhoun.  I  am  very  reluctant  to  inter- 
rupt the  honorable  gentleman  ;  but,  upon  a 
point  of  so  much  importance,  I  deem  it  right 
to  put  myself  rectus  in  curia.  I  did  not  put  it 
upon  the  ground  assumed  by  the  Senator.  I 
put  it  upon  this  ground  ;  that  Great  Britain 
had  announced  to  this  country,  in  so  many 
words,  that  her  object  was  to  abolish  slavery  in 
Texas,  and,  through  Texas,  to  accomplish  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  United  States  and 
the  world.  The  ground  I  put  it  on  was,  that 
it  would  make  an  exposed  frontier,  and,  if 
Great  Britain  succeeded  in  her  object,  it  would 
be  impossible  that  that  frontier  could  be  se- 
cured against  the  aggressions  of  the  Abolition- 
ists ;  and  that  this  Government  was  bound, 
under  the  guaranties  of  the  Constitution,  to 
protect  us  against  such  a  state  of  things. 

Mr.  Webster.  That  comes,  I  suppose,  Sir, 
to  exactly  the  same  thing.  It  was,  that  Texas 
must  be  obtained  for  the  security  of  the  slave 
interest  of  the  South. 

Mr.  Calhoun.  Another  view  is  very  distinctly 
given. 

Mr.  Webster.  That  was  the  object  set  forth 
in  the  correspondence  of  a  worthy  gentleman 
not  now  living,  who  preceded  the  honorable 
member  from  South  Carolina  in  the  Depart- 


174  DANIEL    WEBSTER. 

ment  of  State.  There  repose  on  the  files  of  the 
Department,  as  I  have  occasion  to  know,  strong 
letters  from  Mr.  Upshur  to  the  United  States 
Minister  in  England,  and  I  believe  there  are 
some  to  the  same  Minister  from  the  honorable 
Senator  himself,  asserting  to  this  effect  the 
sentiments  of  this  government ;  namely,  that 
Great  Britain  was  expected  not  to  interfere  to 
take  Texas  out  of  the  hands  of  its  then  exist- 
ing government  and  make  it  a  free  country. 
But  my  argument,  my  suggestion,  is  this  :  that 
those  gentlemen  who  composed  the  Northern 
Democracy  when  Texas  was  brought  into  the 
Union  saw  clearly  that  it  was  brought  in  as  a 
slave  country,  and  brought  in  for  the  purpose 
of  being  maintained  as  slave  territory,  to  the 
Greek  Kalends.17  I  rather  think  the  honorable 
gentleman  who  was  then  Secretary  of  State 
might,  in  some  of  his  correspondence  with  Mr. 
Murphy,  have  suggested  that  it  was  not  ex- 
pedient to  say  too  much  about  this  object, 
lest  it  should  create  some  alarm.  At  any  rate, 
Mr.  Murphy  wrote  to  him  that  England  was 
anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  constitution  of  Texas, 
because  it  was  a  constitution  establishing 
slavery ;  and  that  what  the  United  States  had 
to  do  was  to  aid  the  people  of  Texas  in  uphold- 
ing their  constitution  ;  but  that  nothing  should 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  THE  UNION.      175 

be  said  which  should  offend  the  fanatical  men 
of  the  North.  But,  Sir,  the  honorable  member 
did  avow  this  object  himself,  openly,  boldly, 
and  manfully  ;  he  did  not  disguise  his  conduct 
or  his  motives. 

Mr.  Calhoun.     Never,  never. 

Mr.  Webster.  What  he  means  he  is  very 
apt  to  say. 

Mr.  Calhoun.     Always,  always. 

Mr.  Webster.     And  I  honor  him  for  it. 

This  admission  of  Texas  was  in  1845.  Then 
in  1847,  flagrante  bello  between  the  United 
States  and  Mexico,  the  proposition  I  have 
mentioned  was  brought  forward  by  my  friend 
from  Georgia,  and  the  Northern  Democracy 
voted  steadily  against  it.  Their  remedy  was 
to  apply  to  the  acquisitions,  after  they  should 
come  in,  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  What  follows  ? 
These  two  gentlemen,  worthy  and  honorable 
and  influential  men  (and  if  they  had  not  been 
they  could  not  have  carried  the  measure),  these 
two  gentlemen,  members  of  this  body,  brought 
in  Texas,  and  by  their  votes  they  also  pre- 
vented the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  the 
honorable  member  from  Georgia,  and  then 
they  went  home  and  took  the  lead  in  the  Free 
Soil  party.  And  there  they  stand,  Sir  !  They 
leave  us  here,  bound  in  honor  and  conscience 


DANIEL    WEBSTER. 


by  the  resolutions  of  annexation  ;  they  leave 
us  here,  to  take  the  odium  of  fulfilling  the 
obligations  in  favor  of  slavery  which  they  voted 
us  into,  or  else  the  greater  odium  of  violating 
those  obligations,  while  they  are  at  home 
making  capital  and  rousing  speeches  for  free 
soil  and  no  slavery.  And  therefore  I  say,  Sir, 
that  there  is  not  a  chapter  in  our  history,  re- 
specting public  measures  and  public  men,  more 
full  of  what  would  create  surprise,  and  more 
full  of  what  does  create,  in  my  mind,  extreme 
mortification,  than  that  of  the  conduct  of  the 
Northern  Democracy  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  President,  sometimes  when  a  man  is 
found  in  a  new  relation  to  things  around  him 
and  to  other  men,  he  says  the  world  has 
changed,  and  that  he  is  not  changed.  I  believe, 
sir,  that  our  self-respect  leads  us  often  to  make 
this  declaration  in  regard  to  ourselves  when  it 
is  not  exactly  true.  An  individual  is  more  apt 
to  change,  perhaps,  than  all  the  world  around 
him.  But  under  the  present  circumstances, 
and  under  the  responsibility  which  I  know  I 
incur  by  what  I  am  now  stating  here,  I  feel 
at  liberty  to  recur  to  the  various  expressions 
and  statements,  made  at  various  times,  of  my 
own  opinions  and  resolutions  respecting  the 
admission  of  Texas,  and  all  that  has  followed. 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     177 

*  *  *  "  On  other  occasions,  in  debate  here, 
I  have  expressed  my  determination  to  vote  for 
no  acquisition,  or  cession,  or  annexation,  North 
or  South,  East  or  West.  My  opinion  has  been, 
that  we  have  territory  enough,  and  that  we 
should  follow  the  Spartan  maxim  :  "  Improve, 
adorn  what  you  have," — seek  no  further.  I 
think  that  it  was  in  some  observations  that 
I  made  on  the  three  million  loan  bill 19  that  I 
avowed  this  sentiment.  In  short,  sir,  it  has  been 
avowed  quite  as  often  in  as  many  places,  and 
before  as  many  assemblies,  as  any  humble 
opinions  of  mine  ought  to  be  avowed. 

But  now  that,  under  certain  conditions,  Texas 
is  in  the  Union,  with  all  her  territory,  as  a 
slave  State,  with  a  solemn  pledge  also  that,  if 
she  shall  be  divided  into  many  States,  those 
States  may  come  in  as  slave  States  south  of  36° 
30',  how  are  we  to  deal  with  this  subject  ?  I 
know  no  way  of  honest  legislation,  when  the 
proper  time  comes  for  the  enactment,  but  to 
carry  into  effect  all  that  we  have  stipulated  to 
do.  *  *  * ao  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  con- 
tract which  our  friends,  the  northern  Democracy, 
have  left  us  to  fulfil ;  and  I,  for  one,  mean  to 
fulfil  it,  because  I  will  not  violate  the  faith  of 
the  Government.  What  I  mean  to  say  is,  that 


i;8  DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

the  time  for  the  admission  of  new  States 
formed  out  of  Texas,  the  number  of  such  States, 
their  boundaries,  the  requisite  amount  of  popu- 
lation, and  all  other  things  connected  with  the 
admission,  are  in  the  free  discretion  of  Congress, 
except  this :  to  wit,  that  when  new  States 
formed  out  of  Texas  are  to  be  admitted,  they 
have  a  right,  by  legal  stipulation  and  contract, 
to  come  in  as  slave  States. 

Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I 
hold  slavery  to  be  excluded  from  these  terri- 
tories by  a  law  even  superior  to  that  which  ad- 
mits and  sanctions  it  in  Texas.  I  mean  the 
law  of  nature,  of  physical  geography,  the  law  of 
the  formation  of  the  earth.  That  law  settles 
forever,  with  a  strength  beyond  all  terms  of 
human  enactment,  that  slavery  cannot  exist  in 
California  or  New  Mexico.21  Understand  me, 
sir  ;  I  mean  slavery  as  we  regard  it ;  the  slavery 
of  the  colored  race  as  it  exists  in  the  southern 
States.  I  shall  not  discuss  the  point,  but  leave 
it  to  the  learned  gentlemen  who  have  under- 
taken to  discuss  it ;  but  I  suppose  there  is  no 
slavery  of  that  description  in  California  now. 
I  understand  iha.t  fleonism,  a  sort  of  penal  servi- 
tude, exists  there,  or  rather  a  sort  of  voluntary 
sale  of  a  man  and  his  offspring  for  debt,  an  ar- 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     1 79 

rangement  of  a  peculiar  nature  known  to  the 
law  of  Mexico.  But  what  I  mean  to  say  is, 
that  it  is  impossible  that  African  slavery,  as  we 
see  it  among  us,  should  find  its  way,  or  be  intro- 
duced, into  California  and  New  Mexico,  as  any 
other  natural  impossibility.  California  and  New 
Mexico  are  Asiatic  in  their  formation  and 
scenery.  They  are  composed  of  vast  ridges  of 
mountains  of  great  height,  with  broken  ridges 
and  deep  valleys.  The  sides  of  these  moun- 
tains are  entirely  barren  ;  their  tops  capped  by 
perennial  snow.  There  may  be  in  California, 
now  made  free  by  its  constitution,  and  no  doubt 
there  are,  some  tracts  of  valuable  land.  But  it 
is  not  so  in  New  Mexico.  Pray,  what  is  the 
evidence  which  every  gentleman  must  have  ob- 
tained on  this  subject,  from  information  sought 
by  himself  or  communicated  by  others  ?  I  have 
inquired  and  read  all  I  could  find,  in  order  to- 
acquire  information  on  this  important  subject. 
What  is  there  in  New  Mexico  that  could,  by 
any  possibility,  induce  anybody  to  go  there 
with  slaves  !  There  are  some  narrow  strips  of 
tillable  land  on  the  borders  of  the  rivers ;  but 
the  rivers  themselves  dry  up  before  midsummer 
is  gone.  All  that  the  people  can  do  in  that 
region  is  to  raise  some  little  articles,  some  little 


180  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

wheat  for  their  tortillas,  and  that  by  irrigation. 
And  who  expects  to  see  a  hundred  black  men 
cultivating  tobacco,  corn,  cotton,  rice,  or  any 
thing  else,  on  lands  in  New  Mexico,  made  fer- 
tile by  irrigation  ? 

I  look  upon  it,  therefore,  as  a  fixed  fact,  to 
use  the  current  expression  of  the  day,  that  both 
California  and  New  Mexico  are  destined  to  be 
free,  so  far  as  they  are  settled  at  all,  which  I 
believe,  in  regard  to  New  Mexico,  will  be  but 
partially,  for  a  great  length  of  time ;  free  by 
the  arrangement  of  things  ordained  by  the 
Power  above  us.  I  have  therefore  to  say,  in 
this  respect  also,  that  this  country  is  fixed  for 
freedom,  to  as  many  persons  as  shall  ever  live 
in  it,  by  a  less  repealable  law  than  that  which 
attaches  to  the  right  of  holding  slaves  in  Texas  ; 
and  I  will  say  further,  that,  if  a  resolution  or  a 
bill  were  now  before  us,  to  provide  a  territorial 
government  for  New  Mexico,  I  would  not  vote 
to  put  any  prohibition  into  it  whatever.  Such 
a  prohibition  would  be  idle,  as  it  respects  any 
effect  it  would  have  upon  the  territory ;  and  I 
would  not  take  pains  uselessly  to  reaffirm  an 
ordinance  of  nature,  nor  to  re-enact  the  will  of 
God."  I  would  put  in  no  Wilmot  proviso  for 
the  mere  purpose  of  a  taunt  or  a  reproach.  I 


CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     l8l 


would  put  into  it  no  evidence  of  the  votes  of 
superior  power,  exercised  for  no  purpose  but  to 
wound  the  pride,  whether  a  just  and  a  rational 
pride,  or  an  irrational  pride,  of  the  citizens  of 
the  southern  States.  I  have  no  such  object, 
no  such  purpose.  They  would  think  it  a  taunt, 
an  indignity  ;  they  would  think  it  to  be  an  act 
taking  away  from  them  what  they  regard  as  a 
proper  equality  of  privilege.  Whether  they 
expect  to  realize  any  benefit  from  it  or  not, 
they  would  think  it  at  least  a  plain  theoretic 
wrong  ;  that  something  more  or  less  derogatory 
to  their  character  and  their  rights  had  taken 
place.  I  propose  to  inflict  no  such  wound  upon 
anybody,  unless  something  essentially  import- 
ant to  the  country,  and  efficient  to  the  preser- 
vation of  liberty  and  freedom,  is  to  be  effected. 
I  repeat,  therefore,  sir,  and,  as  I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  address  the  Senate  often  on  this  sub- 
ject, I  repeat  it  because  I  wish  it  to  be  dis- 
tinctly understood,  that,  for  the  reasons  stated, 
if  a  proposition  were  now  here  to  establish  a 
government  for  New  Mexico,  and  it  was  moved 
to  insert  a  provision  for  a  prohibition  of 
slavery,  I  would  not  vote  for  it.  *  *  *  a8  Sir, 
we  hear  occasionally  of  the  annexation  of 
Canada  ;  and  if  there  be  any  man,  any  of  the 


!g2  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

northern  Democracy,  or  any  of  the  Free  Soil 
party,  who  supposes  it  necessary  to  insert  a 
Wilmot  Proviso  in  a  territorial  government  for 
New  Mexico,  that  man  would,  of  course,  be  of 
opinion  that  it  is  necessary  to  protect  the  ever- 
lasting snows  of  Canada  from  the  foot  of  slav- 
ery by  the  same  overspreading  wing  of  an  act 
of  Congress.  Sir,  wherever  there  is  a  sub- 
stantive good  to  be  done,  wherever  there  is  a 
foot  of  land  to  be  prevented  from  becoming 
slave  territory,  I  am  ready  to  assert  the  principle 
of  the  exclusion  of  slavery.  I  am  pledged  to 
it  from  the  year  1837  ;  I  have  been  pledged  to 
it  again  and  again ;  and  I  will  perform  these 
pledges;  but  I  will  not  do  a  thing  unneces- 
sarily that  wounds  the  feelings  of  others,  or 
that  does  discredit  to  my  own  understand- 
ing. *  *  *'4 

Mr.  President,  in  the  excited  times  in  which 
we  live,  there  is  found  to  exist  a  state  of  crimi- 
nation and  recrimination  between  the  North 
and  South.  There  are  lists  of  grievances  pro- 
duced by  each;  and  those  grievances,  real  or 
supposed,  alienate  the  minds  of  one  portion  of 
the  country  from  the  other,  exasperate  the 
feelings,  and  subdue  the  sense  of  fraternal 
affection,  patriotic  love,  and  mutual  regard.  I 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     183 

shall  bestow  a  little  attention,  sir,  upon  these 
various  grievances  existing  on  the  one  side  and 
on  the  other.  I  begin  with  complaints  of  the 
South.  I  will  not  answer,  further  than  I  have, 
the  general  statements  of  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor from  South  Carolina,  that  the  North  has 
prospered  at  the  expense  of  the  South  in  con- 
sequence of  the  manner  of  administering  this 
Government,  in  the  collection  of  its  revenues, 
and  so  forth.  These  are  disputed  topics,  and  I 
have  no  inclination  to  enter  into  them.  But  I 
will  allude  to  other  complaints  of  the  South, 
and  especially  to  one  which  has  in  my  opinion, 
just  foundation  ;  and  that  is,  that  there  has 
been  found  at  the  North,  among  individuals 
and  among  legislators,  a  disinclination  to  per- 
form fully  their  constitutional  duties  in  regard 
to  the  return  of  persons  bound  to  service  who 
have  escaped  into  the  free  States.  In  that 
respect,  the  South,  in  my  judgment,  is  right, 
and  the  North  is  wrong.  Every  member  of 
every  Northern  legislature  is  bound  by  oath, 
like  every  other  officer  in  the  country,  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
and  the  article  of  the  Constitution  which  says 
to  these  States  that  they  shall  deliver  up  fugi- 
tives from  service,  is  as  binding  in  honor  and 


184  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

conscience  as  any  other  article.  No  man  fulfils 
his  duty  in  any  legislature  who  sets  himself  to 
find  excuses,  evasions,  escapes  from  this  con- 
stitutional obligation.  I  have  always  thought 
that  the  Constitution  addressed  itself  to  the 
legislatures  of  the  States  or  to  the  States  them- 
selves. It  says  that  those  persons  escaping  to 
other  States  "shall  be  delivered  up,"  and  I  con- 
fess I  have  always  been  of  the  opinion  that  it 
was  an  injunction  upon  the  States  themselves. 
When  it  is  said  that  a  person  escaping  into 
another  State,  and  coming  therefore  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  that  State,  shall  be  delivered  up, 
it  seems  to  me  the  import  of  the  clause  is,  that 
the  State  itself,  in  obedience  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, shall  cause  him  to  be  delivered  up.  That 
is  my  judgment.  I  have  always  entertained 
that  opinion,  and  I  entertain  it  now.  But 
when  the  subject,  some  years  ago,  was  before 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  the 
majority  of  the  judges  held  that  the  power  to 
cause  fugitives  from  service  to  be  delivered 
up  was  a  power  to  be  exercised  under  the 
authority  of  this  Government."  I  do  not  know, 
on  the  whole,  that  it  may  not  have  been  a 
fortunate  decision.  My  habit  is  to  respect 
the  result  of  judicial  deliberations  and  the 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     185 

solemnity  of  judicial  decisions.  As  it  now 
stands,  the  business  of  seeing  that  these  fugi- 
tives are  delivered  up  resides  in  the  power  of 
Congress  and  the  national  judicature,  and  my 
friend  at  the  head  of  the  Judiciary  Committee 26 
has  a  bill  on  the  subject  now  before  the  Senate, 
which,  with  some  amendments  to  it,  I  propose 
to  support,  with  all  its  provisions,  to  the  fullest 
extent.  And  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of 
all  sober-minded  men  at  the  North,  of  all  con- 
scientious men,  of  all  men  who  are  not  carried 
away  by  some  fanatical  idea  or  some  false  im- 
pression, to  their  constitutional  obligations.  I 
put  it  to  all  the  sober  and  sound  minds  at  the 
North  as  a  question  of  morals  and  a  question  of 
conscience.  What  right  have  they,  in  their 
legislative  capacity,  or  any  other  capacity,  to 
endeavor  to  get  round  this  Constitution,  or  to 
embarrass  the  free  exercise  of  the  rights  secured 
by  the  Constitution,  to  the  person  whose  slaves 
escape  from  them  ?  None  at  all ;  none  at  all. 
Neither  in  the  forum  of  conscience,  nor  before 
the  face  of  the  Constitution,  are  they,  in  my 
opinion,  justified  in  such  an  attempt.  Of  course 
it  is  a  matter  for  their  consideration.  They 
probably,  in  the  excitement  of  the  times,  have 
not  stopped  to  consider  this.  They  have  fol- 


1 86  DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

lowed  what  seemed  to  be  the  current  of  thought 
and  of  motives,  as  the  occasion  arose,  and  they 
have  neglected  to  investigate  fully  the  real  ques- 
tion, and  to  consider  their  constitutional  obliga- 
tions; which,  I  am  sure,  if  they  did  consider, 
they  would  fulfil  with  alacrity."  I  repeat,  there- 
fore, sir,  that  here  is  a  well-founded  ground  of 
complaint  against  the  North,  which  ought  to  be 
removed,  which  is  now  in  the  power  of  the  diff- 
erent departments  of  this  government  to  re- 
move ;  which  calls  for  the  enactment  of  proper 
laws  authorizing  the  judicature  of  this  Govern- 
ment, in  the  several  States,  to  do  all  that  is 
necessary  for  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves 
and  for  their  restoration  to  those  who  claim 
them.  Wherever  I  go,  and  whenever  I  speak 
on  the  subject,  and  when  I  speak  here  I  desire 
to  speak  to  the  whole  North,  I  say  that  the 
South  has  been  injured  in  this  respect,  and  has 
a  right  to  complain ;  and  the  North  has  been 
too  careless  of  what  I  think  the  Constitution 
peremptorily  and  emphatically  enjoins  upon 
her  as  a  duty. 

Complaint  has  been  made  against  certain 
resolutions  that  emanate  from  legislatures  at 
the  North,  and  are  sent  here  to  us,  not  only  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  this  District,  but  some- 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     187 

times  recommending  Congress  to  consider  the 
means  of  abolishing  slavery  in  the  States.  I 
should  be  sorry  to  be  called  upon  to  present 
any  resolutions  here  which  could  not  be  refer- 
able to  any  committee  or  any  power  in  Con- 
gress; and  therefore  I  should  be  unwilling  to 
receive  from  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts 
any  instructions  to  present  resolutions  expres- 
sive of  any  opinion  whatever  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  as  it  exists  at  the  present  moment  in 
the  States,  for  two  reasons :  because  I  do  not 
consider  that  I,  as  her  representative  here,  have 
any  thing  to  do  with  it.  It  has  become,  in  my 
opinion,  quite  too  common ;  and  if  the  legis- 
latures of  the  States  do  not  like  that  opinion, 
they  have  a  great  deal  more  power  to  put  it 
down  than  I  have  to  uphold  it ;  it  has  become, 
in  my  opinion,  quite  too  common  a  practice  for 
the  State  legislatures  to  present  resolutions 
here  on  all  subjects  and  to  instruct  us  on  all 
subjects.  There  is  no  public  man  that  requires 
instruction  more  than  I  do,  or  who  requires 
information  more  than  I  do,  or  desires  it  more 
heartily ;  but  I  do  not  like  to  have  it  in  too 
imperative  a  shape.  *  *  * " 

Then,  sir,  there  are  the  Abolition  societies, 
of  which  I  am  unwilling  to  speak,  but  in  regard 


1 88  DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

to  which  I  have  very  clear  notions  and  opin- 
ions. I  do  not  think  them  useful.  I  think 
their  operations  for  the  last  twenty  years  have 
produced  nothing  good  or  valuable.  At  the 
same  time,  I  believe  thousands  of  their  mem- 
bers to  be  honest  and  good  men,  perfectly  well- 
meaning  men.  They  have  excited  feelings ; 
they  think  they  must  do  something  for  the 
cause  of  liberty ;  and,  in  their  sphere  of  action, 
they  do  not  see  what  else  they  can  do  than  to 
contribute  to  an  abolition  press,  or  an  aboli- 
tion society,  or  to  pay  an  abolition  lecturer.  I 
do  not  mean  to  impute  gross  motives  even  to 
the  leaders  of  these  societies,  but  I  am  not 
blind  to  the  consequences  of  their  proceedings. 
I  cannot  but  see  what  mischief  their  interfer- 
ence with  the  South  has  produced.  And  is  it 
not  plain  to  every  man  ?  Let  any  gentleman 
who  entertains  doubts  on  this  point,  recur  to 
the  debates  in  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates 
in  1832,  and  he  will  see  with  what  freedom  a 
proposition  made  by  Mr.  Jefferson  Randolph, 
for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  was  dis- 
cussed in  that  body."  Every  one  spoke  of 
slavery  as  he  thought ;  very  ignominous  and 
disparaging  names  and  epithets  were  applied  to 
it.  The  debates  in  the  House  of  Delegates  on 


-    THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.    189 

that  occasion,  I  believe  were  all  published. 
They  were  read  by  every  colored  man  who 
could  read,  and  to  those  who  could  not  read, 
those  debates  were  read  by  others.  At  that 
time  Virginia  was  not  unwilling  or  afraid  to 
discuss  this  question,  and  to  let  that  part  of  her 
population  know  as  much  of  the  discussion 
as  they  could  learn.  That  was  in  1832.  As 
has  been  said  by  the  honorable  member  from 
South  Carolina,  these  abolition  societies  com- 
menced their  course  of  action  in  1835.  It  is 
said,  I  do  not  know  how  true  it  may  be,  that 
they  sent  incendiary  publications  into  the  slave 
States  ;  at  any  rate,  they  attempted  to  arouse, 
and  did  arouse,  a  very  strong  feeling ;  in  other 
words,  they  created  great  agitation  in  the 
North  against  Southern  slavery.  Well,  what 
was  the  result  ?  The  bonds  of  the  slaves  were 
bound  more  firmly  than  before,  their  rivets 
were  more  strongly  fastened.'0  Public  opinion, 
which  in  Virginia  had  begun  to  be  exhibited 
against  slavery,  and  was  opening  out  for  the 
discussion  of  the  question,  drew  back  and  shut 
itself  up  in  its  castle.  I  wish  to  know  whether 
anybody  in  Virginia  can  now  talk  openly,  as 
Mr.  Randolph,  Governor  McDowel,  and  others 
talked  in  1832,  and  sent  their  remarks  to  the 


I QO  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

press  ?  We  all  know  the  fact,  and  we  all  know 
the  cause ;  and  every  thing  that  these  agitating 
people  have  done  has  been,  not  to  enlarge,  but 
to  restrain,  not  to  set  free,  but  to  bind  faster, 
the  slave  population  of  the  South.  *  *  *  " 
There  are  also  complaints  of  the  North 
against  the  South.  I  need  not  go  over  them 
particularly.  The  first  and  gravest  is,  that  the 
North  adopted  the  Constitution,  recognizing 
the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  States,  and  rec- 
ognizing the  right,  to  a  certain  extent,  of  the 
representation  of  slaves  in  Congress,  under  a 
state  of  sentiment  and  expectation  which  does 
not  now  exist ;  and  that  by  events,  by  circum- 
stances, by  the  eagerness  of  the  South  to  ac- 
quire territory  and  extend  her  slave  population, 
the  North  finds  itself,  in  regard  to  the  relative 
influence  of  the  South  and  the  North,  of  the 
free  States  and  the  slave  States,  where  it  never 
did  expect  to  find  itself  when  they  agreed  to 
the  compact  of  the  Constitution.  They  com- 
plain, therefore,  that,  instead  of  slavery  being 
regarded  as  an  evil,  as  it  was  then,  an  evil 
which  all  hoped  would  be  extinguished  gradu- 
ally, it  is  now  regarded  by  the  South  as  an 
institution  to  be  cherished,  and  preserved,  and 
extended  ;  an  institution  which  the  South  has 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     191 

already  extended  to  the  utmost  of  her  power 
by  the  acquisition  of  new  territory. 

Well,  then,  passing  from  that,  everybody  in 
the  North  reads  ;  and  everybody  reads  what- 
soever the  newspapers  contain  ;  and  the  news- 
papers, some  of  them,  especially  those  presses 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  are  careful  to  spread 
about  among  the  people  every  reproachful  sen- 
timent uttered  by  any  Southern  man  bearing 
at  all  against  the  North ;  every  thing  that  is 
calculated  to  exasperate  and  to  alienate  ;  and 
there  are  many  such  things,  as  everybody  will 
admit,  from  the  South,  or  from  portions  of  it, 
which  are  disseminated  among  the  reading 
people  ;  and  they  do  exasperate,  and  alienate, 
and  produce  a  most  mischievous  effect  upon 
the  public  mind  at  the  North.  Sir,  I  would 
not  notice  things  of  this  sort  appearing  in  ob- 
scure quarters ;  but  one  thing  has  occurred 
in  this  debate  which  struck  me  very  forcibly. 
An  honorable  member  from  Louisiana"  ad- 
dressed us  the  other  day  on  this  subject.  I 
suppose  there  is  not  a  more  amiable  and  worthy 
gentleman  in  this  chamber,  nor  a  gentleman 
who  would  be  more  slow  to  give  offence  to  any 
body,  and  he  did  not  mean  in  his  remarks  to 
give  offence.  But  what  did  he  say  ?  Why, 


IQ2  DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

sir,  he  took  pains  to  run  a  contrast  between  the 
slaves  of  the  South  and  the  laboring  people  of 
the  North,  giving  the  preference,  in  all  points 
of  condition,  and  comfort,  and  happiness  to 
the  slaves  of  the  South.  The  honorable  mem- 
ber, doubtless,  did  not  suppose  that  he  gave 
any  offence,  or  did  any  injustice.  He  was 
merely  expressing  his  opinion.  But  does  he 
know  how  remarks  of  that  sort  will  be  received 
by  the  laboring  people  of  the  North  ?  Why, 
who  are  the  laboring  people  of  the  North? 
They  are  the  whole  North.  They  are  the 
people  who  till  their  own  farms  with  their  own 
hands  ;  freeholders,  educated  men,  indepen- 
dent men.  Let  me  say,  sir,  that  five  sixths  of 
the  whole  property  of  the  North  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  laborers  of  the  North  ; 3S  they  culti- 
vate their  farms,  they  educate  their  children, 
they  provide  the  means  of  independence.  If 
they  are  not  freeholders,  they  earn  wages ; 
these  wages  accumulate,  are  turned  into  capi- 
tal, into  new  freeholds,  and  small  capitalists 
are  created.  Such  is  the  case,  and  such  the 
course  of  things,  among  the  industrious  and 
frugal.  And  what  can  these  people  think 
when  so  respectable  and  worthy  a  gentleman 
as  the  member  from  Louisiana  undertakes  to 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.    193 

prove  that  the  absolute  ignorance  and  the  ab- 
ject slavery  of  the  South  are  more  in  conformity 
with  the  high  purposes  and  destiny  of  immor- 
tal, rational,  human  beings,  than  the  educated, 
the  independent  free  labor  of  the  North  ? 

There  is  a  more  tangible  and  irritating  cause 
of  grievance  at  the  North.  Free  blacks  are 
constantly  employed  in  the  vessels  of  the 
North,  generally  as  cooks  or  stewards.  When 
the  vessel  arrives  at  a  southern  port,  these  free 
colored  men  are  taken  on  shore,  by  the  police 
or  municipal  authority,  imprisoned,  and  kept 
in  prison  till  the  vessel  is  again  ready  to  sail. 
This  is  not  only  irritating,  but  exceedingly  un- 
justifiable and  oppressive.  Mr.  Hoar's  mission, 
some  time  ago  to  South  Carolina,  was  a  well- 
intended  effort  to  remove  this  cause  of  com- 
plaint. The  North  thinks  such  imprisonments 
illegal  and  unconstitutional ;  and  as  the  cases 
occur  constantly  and  frequently  they  regard  it 
as  a  grievance." 

Now,  sir,  so  far  as  any  of  these  grievances 
have  their  foundation  in  matters  of  law,  they 
can  be  redressed,  and  ought  to  be  redressed ; 
and  so  far  as  they  have  their  foundation  in 
matters  of  opinion,  in  sentiment,  in  mutual 
crimination  and  recrimination,  all  that  we  can 


VOL.  II. — 13. 


194  DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

do  is  to  endeavor  to  allay  the  agitation,  and 
cultivate  a  better  feeling  and  more  fraternal 
sentiments  between  the  South  and  the  North. 

Mr.  President,  I  should  much  prefer  to  have 
heard  from  every  member  on  this  floor  declara- 
tions of  opinion  that  this  Union  could  never  be 
dissolved,  than  the  declaration  of  opinion  by 
anybody,  that  in  any  case,  under  the  pressure 
of  any  circumstances,  such  a  dissolution  was 
possible.  I  hear  with  distress  and  anguish  the 
word  "  secession,"  especially  when  it  falls  from 
the  lips  of  those  who  are  patriotic,  and  known 
to  the  country,  and  known  all  over  the  world 
for  their  political  services.  Secession  !  Peace- 
able secession  !  Sir,  your  eyes  and  mine  are 
never  destined  to  see  that  miracle.  The  dis- 
memberment of  this  vast  country  without  con- 
vulsion !  The  breaking  up  of  the  fountains  of 
the  great  deep  without  ruffling  the  surface  ! 
Who  is  so  foolish — I  beg  everybody's  pardon — 
as  to  expect  to  see  any  such  thing  ?  Sir,  he 
who  sees  these  States,  now  revolving  in  har- 
mony around  a  common  centre,  and  expects  to 
see  them  quit  their  places  and  fly  off  without 
convulsion,  may  look  the  next  hour  to  see  the 
heavenly  bodies  rush  from  their  spheres,  and 
jostle  against  each  other  in  the  realms  of  space, 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     195 

without  causing  the  wreck  of  the  universe. 
There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  peaceable 
secession.  Peaceable  secession  is  an  utter  irn^ 
possibility.  Is  the  great  Constitution  under 
which  we  live,  covering  this  whole  country,  is 
it  to  be  thawed  and  melted  away  by  secession, 
as  the  snows  on  the  mountain  melt  under  the 
influence  of  a  vernal  sun,  disappear  almost  un- 
observed, and  run  off  ?  No,  sir !  No,  sir  !  I 
will  not  state  what  might  produce  the  disrup- 
tion of  the  Union  ;  but,  sir,  I  see  as  plainly  as 
I  can  see  the  sun  in  heaven  what  that  disrup- 
tion itself  must  produce  ;  I  see  that  it  must 
produce  war,  and  such  a  war  as  I  will  not 
describe,  in  its  twofold  character. 

Peaceable  secession  !  Peaceable  secession  ! 
The  concurrent  agreement  of  all  the  members 
of  this  great  Republic  to  separate  !  A  volun- 
tary separation,  with  alimony  on  one  side 
and  on  the  other.  Why,  what  would  be  the 
result  ?  Where  is  the  line  to  be  drawn  ?  What 
States  are  to  secede  ?  What  is  to  remain 
American  ?  What  am  I  to  be  ?  An  American 
no  longer  ?  Am  I  to  become  a  sectional  man, 
a  local  man,  a  separatist,  with  no  country  in 
common  with  the  gentlemen  who  sit  around 
me  here,  or  who  fill  the  other  house  of  Con- 


196  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

gress  ?  Heaven  forbid  !  Where  is  the  flag  of 
the  Republic  to  remain  ?  Where  is  the  eagle 
still  to  tower  ?  or  is  he  to  cower,  and  shrink, 
and  fall  to  the  ground  ?  Why,  sir,  our  ances- 
tors, our  fathers  and  our  grandfathers,  those  of 
them  that  are  yet  living  amongst  us  with  pro- 
longed lives,  would  rebuke  and  reproach  us  ; 
and  our  children  and  our  grandchildren  would 
cry  out  shame  upon  us,  if  we  of  this  generation 
should  dishonor  these  ensigns  of  the  power  of 
the  Government  and  the  harmony  of  that  Union 
which  is  every  day  felt  among  us  with  so  much 
joy  and  gratitude.  What  is  to  become  of  the 
army  ?  What  is  to  become  of  the  navy  ?  What 
is  to  become  of  the  public  lands  ?  How  is  each 
of  the  thirty  States  to  defend  itself  ?  I  know, 
although  the  idea  has  not  been  stated  dis- 
tinctly, there  is  to  be,  or  it  is  supposed  possible 
that  there  will  be,  a  Southern  Confederacy.  I 
do  not  mean,  when  I  allude  to  this  statement, 
that  any  one  seriously  contemplates  such  a 
state  of  things.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  it 
is  true,  but  I  have  heard  it  suggested  elsewhere, 
that  the  idea  has  been  entertained,  that,  aftei 
the  dissolution  of  this  Union,  a  Southern  Con- 
federacy might  be  formed.  I  am  sorry,  sir,  that 
it  has  ever  been  thought  of,  talked  of,  in  the 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.    !$? 

wildest  flights  of  human  imagination.  But  the 
idea,  so  far  as  it  exists,  must  be  of  a  separation, 
assigning  the  slave  States  to  one  side,  and  the 
free  States  to  the  other.  Sir,  I  may  express 
myself  too  strongly,  perhaps,  but  there  are  im- 
possibilities in  the  natural  as  well  as  in  the  phy- 
sical world,  and  I  hold  the  idea  of  the  separation 
of  these  States,  those  that  are  free  to  form  one 
government,  and  those  that  are  slave-holding 
to  form  another,  as  such  an  impossibility.  We 
could  not  separate  the  States  by  any  such  line, 
if  we  were  to  draw  it.  We  could  not  sit  down 
here  to-day  and  draw  a  line  of  separation  that 
would  satisfy  any  five  men  in  the  country. 
There  are  natural  causes  that  would  keep  and 
tie  us  together,  and  there  are  social  and  do- 
mestic relations  which  we  could  not  break  if 
we  would,  and  which  we  should  not  if  we 
could. 

Sir,  nobody  can  look  over  the  face  of  this 
country  at  the  present  moment,  nobody  can 
see  where  its  population  is  the  most  dense  and 
growing,  without  being  ready  to  admit,  and 
compelled  to  admit,  that  erelong  the  strength 
of  America  will  be  in  the  Valley  of  the  Missis- 
sippi. Well,  now,  sir,  I  beg  to  inquire  what 
the  wildest  enthusiast  has  to  say  on  the  possi- 


198  DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

bility  of  cutting  that  river  in  two,  and  leaving 
free  States  at  its  source  and  on  its  branches, 
and  slave  States  down  near  its  mouth,  each 
forming  a  separate  government  ?  Pray,  sir, 
let  me  say  to  the  people  of  this  country,  that 
these  things  are  worthy  of  their  pondering  and 
of  their  consideration.  Here,  sir,  are  five  mil- 
lions of  freemen  in  the  free  States  north  of  the 
river  Ohio.  Can  anybody  suppose  that  this 
population  can  be  severed,  by  a  line  that  di* 
vides  them  from  the  territory  of  a  foreign  and 
alien  government,  down  somewhere,  the  Lord 
knows  where,  upon  the  lower  banks  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi ?  What  would  become  of  Missouri  ? 
Will  she  join  the  arrondissement  of  the  slave 
States  ?  Shall  the  man  from  the  Yellowstone 
and  the  Platte  be  connected,  in  the  new  repub- 
lic, with  the  man  who  lives  on  the  southern 
extremity  of  the  Cape  of  Florida  ?  Sir,  I  am 
ashamed  to  pursue  this  line  of  remark.  I  dis- 
like it,  I  have  an  utter  disgust  for  it.  I  would 
rather  hear  of  natural  blasts  and  mildews,  war, 
pestilence,  and  famine,  than  to  hear  gentlemen 
talk  of  secession.  To  break  up  this  great  Gov- 
ernment !  to  dismember  this  glorious  country ! 
to  astonish  Europe  with  an  act  of  folly  such  as 
Europe  for  two  centuries  has  never  beheld  in 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     199 

any  government  or  any  people  !  No,  sir  !  no, 
sir!  There  will  be  no  secession!  Gentlemen 
are  not  serious  when  they  talk  of  secession. 

Sir,  I  hear  there  is  to  be  a  convention  held 
at  Nashville.  I  am  bound  to  believe  that  if 
worthy  gentlemen  meet  at  Nashville  in  conven- 
tion, their  object  will  be  to  adopt  conciliatory 
counsels  ;  to  advise  the  South  to  forbearance 
and  moderation,  and  to  advise  the  North  to 
forbearance  and  moderation  ;  and  to  inculcate 
principles  of  brotherly  love  and  affection,  and 
attachment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country 
as  it  now  is.  I  believe,  if  the  convention  meet 
at  all,  it  will  be  for  this  purpose  ;  for  certainly, 
if  they  meet  for  any  purpose  hostile  to  the 
Union,  they  have  been  singularly  inappropri- 
ate in  their  selection  of  a  place.  I  remem- 
ber, sir,  that,  when  the  treaty  of  Amiens  was 
concluded  between  France  and  England,  a 
sturdy  Englishman  and  a  distinguished  orator, 
who  regarded  the  conditions  of  the  peace  as 
ignominious  to  England,  said  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  that  if  King  William  could  know 
the  terms  of  that  treaty,  he  would  turn  in  his 
coffin  !  Let  me  commend  this  saying  to  Mr. 
Windham,  in  all  its  emphasis  and  in  all  its 
force,  to  any  persons  who  shall  meet  at  Nash- 


200  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

ville  for  the  purpose  of  concerting  measures 
for  the  overthrow  of  this  Union  over  the  bones 
of  Andrew  Jackson.  *  *  * " 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  instead  of  speaking 
of  the  possibility  or  utility  of  secession,  instead 
of  dwelling  in  those  caverns  of  darkness,  in- 
stead of  groping  with  those  ideas  so  full  of  all 
that  is  horrid  and  horrible,  let  us  come  out 
into  the  light  of  the  day ;  let  us  enjoy  the 
fresh  air  of  Liberty  and  Union ;  let  us  cherish 
those  hopes  which  belong  to  us  ;  let  us  devote 
ourselves  to  those  great  objects  that  are  fit  for 
our  consideration  and  our  action ;  let  us  raise 
our  conceptions  to  the  magnitude  and  the  im- 
portance of  the  duties  that  devolve  upon  us ;  let 
our  comprehension  be  as  broad  as  the  country 
for  which  we  act,  our  aspirations  as  high  as  its 
certain  destiny ;  let  us  not  be  pigmies  in  a  case 
that  calls  for  men.  Never  did  there  devolve 
on  any  generation  of  men  higher  trusts  than 
now  devolve  upon  us,  for  the  preservation  of 
this  Constitution  and  the  harmony  and  peace  of 
all  who  are  destined  to  live  under  it.  Let  us 
make  our  generation  one  of  the  strongest  and 
brightest  links  in  that  golden  chain  which  is 
destined,  I  fondly  believe,  to  grapple  the  people 
of  all  the  States  to  this  Constitution  for  ages  to 


THE   CONSTITUTION  AND    THE    UNION.     2OI 

come.  We  have  a  great,  popular,  Constitu- 
tional Government,  guarded  by  law  and  by 
judicature,  and  defended  by  the  affections  of  the 
whole  people.  No  monarchical  throne  presses 
these  States  together,  no  iron  chain  of  military 
power  encircles  them  ;  they  live  and  stand  un- 
der a  Government  popular  in  its  form,  represen- 
tative in  its  character,  founded  upon  principles 
of  equality,  and  so  constructed,  we  hope,  as 
to  last  forever.  In  all  its  history  it  has  been 
beneficent ;  it  has  trodden  down  no  man's  lib- 
erty ;  it  has  crushed  no  State.  Its  daily  respira- 
tion is  liberty  and  patriotism  ;  its  yet  youthful 
veins  are  full  of  enterprise,  courage,  and  honor- 
able love  of  glory  and  renown.  Large  before, 
the  country  has  now,  by  recent  events,  become 
vastly  larger.  This  Republic  now  extends,  with 
a  vast  breadth  across  the  whole  continent.  The 
two  great  seas  of  the  world  wash  the  one  and 
the  other  shore.  We  realize,  on  a  mighty 
scale,  the  beautiful  description  of  the  ornamen- 
tal border  of  the  buckler  of  Achilles : 

"  Now,  the  broad  shield  complete,  the  artist  crowned 
With  his  last  hand,  and  poured  the  ocean  round  ; 
In  living  silver  seemed  the  waves  to  roll, 
And  beat  the  buckler's  verge,  and  bound  the  whole."  3fl 


HENRY  CLAY,* 

OF  KENTUCKY.* 
(BORN  1777,  DIED  1852.) 

ON  THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850  ;    UNITED  STATES  SEN- 
ATE, JULY  22,   1850.* 

MR.  PRESIDENT  : 

In  the  progress  of  this  debate  it  has  been 
again  and  again  argued  that  perfect  tranquillity 
reigns  throughout  the  country,  and  that  there 
is  no  disturbance  threatening  its  peace,  en- 
dangering its  safety,  but  that  which  was  pro- 
duced by  busy,  restless  politicians.  It  has  been 
maintained  that  the  surface  of  the  public  mind 
is  perfectly  smooth  and  undisturbed  by  a  single 
billow.  I  most  heartily  wish  I  could  concur  in 
this  picture  of  general  tranquillity  that  has 
been  drawn  upon  both  sides  of  the  Senate.  I 
am  no  alarmist ;  nor,  I  thank  God,  at  the  ad- 
vanced age  at  which  His  providence  has  been 
pleased  to  allow  me  to  reach,  am  I  very  easily 
alarmed  by  any  human  event;  but  I  totally 

*  For  notes  on  Clay,  see  Appendix,  p.  407. 
20? 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  l8$O.  2OJ 

misread  the  signs  of  the  times,  if  there  be  that 
state  of  profound  peace  and  quiet,  that  absence 
of  all  just  cause  of  apprehension  of  future  dan- 
ger to  this  confederacy,  which  appears  to  be  en- 
tertained by  some  other  senators.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, all  the  tendencies  of  the  times,  I  lament 
to  say,  are  toward  disquietude,  if  not  more  fatal 
consequences.  When  before,  in  the  midst  of 
profound  peace  with  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  have  we  seen  a  convention,3  representing 
a  considerable  portion  of  one  great  part  of  the 
Republic,  meet  to  deliberate  about  measures  of 
future  safety  in  connection  with  great  interests 
of  that  quarter  of  the  country  ?  When  before 
have  we  seen,  not  one,  but  more — some  half  a 
dozen  legislative  bodies  solemnly  resolving  that 
if  any  one  of  these  measures — the  admission 
of  California,  the  adoption  of  the  Wilmot 
proviso,  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia — should  be  adopted  by  Congress, 
measures  of  an  extreme  character,  for  the  safety 
of  the  great  interests  to  which  I  refer,  in  a  par- 
ticular section  of  the  country,  would  be  resorted 
to  ?  For  years,  this  subject  of  the  abolition  of 
slavery,  even  within  this  District  of  Columbia, 
small  as  is  the  number  of  slaves  here,  has  been 
a  source  of  constant  irritation  and  disquiet.  So 


204  HENR  Y  CLA  Y. 

of  the  subject  of  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves 
who  have  escaped  from  their  lawful  owners : 
not  a  mere  border  contest,  as  has  been  sup- 
posed— although  there,  undoubtedly,  it  has 
given  rise  to  more  irritation  than  in  other  por- 
tions of  the  Union — but  everywhere  through- 
out the  slave-holding  country  it  has  been  felt  as 
a  great  evil,  a  great  wrong  which  required  the 
intervention  of  congressional  power.  But  these 
two  subjects,  unpleasant  as  has  been  the  agita- 
tion to  which  they  have  given  rise,  are  nothing 
in  comparison  to  those  which  have  sprung  out 
of  the  acquisitions  recently  made  from  the  Re- 
public of  Mexico.  These  are  not  only  great  and 
leading  causes  of  just  apprehension  as  respects 
the  future,  but  all  the  minor  circumstances  of 
the  day  intimate  danger  ahead,  whatever  may 
be  its  final  issue  and  consequence.  *  *  *  * 

Mr.  President,  I  will  not  dwell  upon  other 
concomitant  causes,  all  having  the  same  ten- 
dency, and  all  well  calculated  to  awaken,  to 
arouse  us — if,  as  I  hope  the  fact  is,  we  are  all  of 
us  sincerely  desirous  of  preserving  this  Union — 
to  rouse  us  to  dangers  which  really  exist,  with- 
out underrating  them  upon  the  one  hand,  or 
magnifying  them  upon  the  other.  *  *  * s 

It  has  been  objected  against  this  measure 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  l8$O.  2O$ 

that  it  is  a  compromise.  It  has  been  said  that 
it  is  a  compromise  of  principle,  or  of  a  principle. 
Mr.  President,  what  is  a  compromise?  It  is  a 
work  of  mutual  concession — an  agreement  in 
which  there  are  reciprocal  stipulations — a  work 
in  which,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  concord, 
one  party  abates  his  extreme  demands  in  con- 
sideration of  an  abatement  of  extreme  demands 
by  the  other  party :  it  is  a  measure  of  mutual 
concession — a  measure  of  mutual  sacrifice.  Un- 
doubtedly, Mr.  President,  in  all  such  measures 
of  compromise,  one  party  would  be  very  glad 
to  get  what  he  wants,  and  reject  what  he  does 
not  desire,  but  which  the  other  party  wants. 
But  when  he  comes  to  reflect  that,  from  the 
nature  of  the  Government  and  its  operations, 
and  from  those  with  whom  he  is  dealing,  it 
is  necessary  upon  his  part,  in  order  to  secure 
what  he  wants,  to  grant  something  to  the  other 
side,  he  should  be  reconciled  to  the  concession 
which  he  has  made,  in  consequence  of  the  con- 
cession which  he  is  to  receive,  if  there  is  no 
great  principle  involved,  such  as  a  violation  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  ad- 
mit that  such  a  compromise  as  that  ought 
never  to  be  sanctioned  or  adopted.  But  I  now 
call  upon  any  senator  in  his  place  to  point  out 


206  HENRY  CLAY. 

from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  from  California 
to  New  Mexico,  a  solitary  provision  in  this  bill 
which  is  violative  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Sir,  adjustments  in  the  shape  of  compromise 
may  be  made  without  producing  any  such  con- 
sequences as  have  been  apprehended.  There 
may  be  a  mutual  forbearance.  You  forbear  on 
your  side  to  insist  upon  the  application  of  the 
restriction  denominated  the  Wilmot  proviso. 
Is  there  any  violation  of  principle  there  ?  The 
most  that  can  be  said,  even  assuming  the  power 
to  pass  the  Wilmot  proviso,  which  is  denied,  is 
that  there  is  a  forbearance  to  exercise,  not  a 
violation  of,  the  power  to  pass  the  proviso.  So, 
upon  the  other  hand,  if  there  was  a  power  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  authoriz- 
ing the  establishment  of  slavery  in  any  of  the 
Territories — a  power,  however,  which  is  con- 
troverted by  a  large  portion  of  this  Senate — if 
there  was  a  power  under  the  Constitution  to 
establish  slavery,  the  forbearance  to  exercise 
that  power  is  no  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
any  more  than  the  Constitution  is  violated  by  a 
forbearance  to  exercise  numerous  powers,  that 
might  be  specified,  that  are  granted  in  the  Con- 
stitution, and  that  remain  dormant  until  they 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  l8$O.  2O/ 

come  to  be  exercised  by  the  proper  legislative 
authorities.  It  is  said  that  the  bill  presents  the 
state  of  coercion — that  members  are  coerced,  in 
order  to  get  what  they  want,  to  vote  for  that 
which  they  disapprove.  Why,  sir,  what  coer- 
cion is  there?  *  *  *"  Can  it  be  said  upon 
the  part  of  our  Northern  friends,  because  they 
have  not  got  the  Wilmot  proviso  incorporated 
in  the  territorial  part  of  the  bill,  that  they  are 
coerced — wanting  California,  as  they  do,  so 
much — to  vote  for  the  bill,  if  they  do  vote  for 
it  ?  Sir,  they  might  have  imitated  the  noble 
example  of  my  friend  (Senator  Cooper,  of  Penn- 
sylvania), from  that  State  upon  whose  devotion 
to  this  Union  I  place  one  of  my  greatest  re- 
liances for  its  preservation.  What  was  the 
course  of  my  friend  upon  this  subject  of  the 
Wilmot  proviso  ?  He  voted  for  it ;  and  he 
could  go  back  to  his  constituents  and  say,  as 
all  of  you  could  go  back  and  say  to  your  con- 
stituents, if  you  chose  to  do  so — "  We  wanted 
the  Wilmot  proviso  in  the  bill ;  we  tried  to  get 
it  in ;  but  the  majority  of  the  Senate  was 
against  it."  The  question  then  came  up 
whether  we  should  lose  California,  which  has 
got  an  interdiction  in  her  constitution,  which, 
in  point  of  value  and  duration,  is  worth  a  thou- 


208  HENRY  CLAY. 

sand  Wilmot  provisos ;  we  were  induced,  as 
my  honorable  friend  would  say,  to  take  the  bill 
and  the  whole  of  it  together,  although  we  were 
disappointed  in  our  votes  with  respect  to  the 
Wilmot  proviso — to  take  it,  whatever  omissions 
may  have  been  made,  on  account  of  the  supe- 
rior amount  of  good  it  contains.  *  *  *7 

Not  the  reception  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
negotiated  at  Ghent,  nor  any  other  event  which 
has  occurred  during  my  progress  in  public  life, 
ever  gave  such  unbounded  and  universal  satis- 
faction as  the  settlement  of  the  Missouri  com- 
promise. We  may  argue  from  like  causes  like 
effects.  Then,  indeed,  there  was  great  excite- 
ment. Then,  indeed,  all  the  legislatures  of  the 
North  called  out  for  the  exclusion  of  Missouri, 
and  all  the  legislatures  of  the  South  called  out 
for  her  admission  as  a  State.  Then,  as  now, 
the  country  was  agitated  like  the  ocean  in  the 
midst  of  a  turbulent  storm.  But  now,  more 
than  then,  has  this  agitation  been  increased. 
Now,  more  than  then,  are  the  dangers  which 
exist,  if  the  controversy  remains  unsettled, 
more  aggravated  and  more  to  be  dreaded.  The 
idea  of  disunion  was  then  scarcely  a  low  whis- 
per. Now,  it  has  become  a  familar  language  in 
certain  portions  of  the  country.  The  public 


THE   COMPROMISE  OF  1850.  209 

mind  and  the  public  heart  are  becoming  famil- 
iarized with  that  most  dangerous  and  fatal  of 
all  events — the  disunion  of  the  States.  People 
begin  to  contend  that  this  is  not  so  bad  a  thing 
as  they  had  supposed.  Like  the  progress  in  all 
human  affairs,  as  we  approach  danger  it  dis- 
appears, it  diminishes  in  our  conception,  and 
we  no  longer  regard  it  with  that  awful  appre- 
hension of  consequences  that  we  did  before  we 
came  into  contact  with  it.  Everywhere  now 
there  is  a  state  of  things,  a  degree  of  alarm  and 
apprehension,  and  determination  to  fight,  as 
they  regard  it,  against  the  aggressions  of  the 
North.  That  did  not  so  demonstrate  itself  at 
the  period  of  the  Missouri  compromise.  It  was 
followed,  in  consequence  of  the  adoption  of  the 
measure  which  settled  the  difficulty  of  Missouri, 
by  peace,  harmony,  and  tranquillity.  So,  now, 
I  infer,  from  the  greater  amount  of  agitation, 
from  the  greater  amount  of  danger,  that,  if  you 
adopt  the  measures  under  consideration,  they, 
too,  will  be  followed  by  the  same  amount  of 
contentment,  satisfaction,  peace,  and  tranquil- 
lity, which  ensued  after  the  Missouri  com- 
promise. *  *  * 8 

The   responsibility   of    this    great    measure 
passes  from  the  hands  of  the  committee,  and 


VOL.  II.  — 14. 


210  HENRY  CLAY. 

from  my  hands.  They  know,  and  I  know,  that 
it  is  an  awful  and  tremendous  responsibility. 
I  hope  that  you  will  meet  it  with  a  just  con- 
ception and  a  true  appreciation  of  its  magni- 
tude, and  the  magnitude  of  the  consequences 
that  may  ensue  from  your  decision  one  way  or 
the  other.  The  alternatives,  I  fear,  which  the 
measure  presents,  are  concord  and  increased  dis- 
cord ;  a  servile  civil  war,  originating  in  its  causes 
on  the  lower  Rio  Grande,  and  terminating  pos- 
sibly in  its  consequences  on  the  upper  Rio 
Grande  in  the  Santa  F£  country,  or  the  restora- 
tion of  harmony  and  fraternal  kindness.  I 
believe  from  the  bottom  of  my  soul,  that  the 
measure  is  the  reunion  of  this  Union.  I  believe 
it  is  the  dove  of  peace,  which,  taking  its  aerial 
flight  from  the  dome  of  the  Capitol,  carries  the 
glad  tidings  of  assured  peace  and  restored  har- 
mony to  all  the  remotest  extremities  of  this  dis- 
tracted land.  I  believe  that  it  will  be  attended 
with  all  these  beneficent  effects.  And  now  let 
us  discard  all  resentment,  all  passions,  all  petty 
jealousies,  all  personal  desires,  all  love  of  place, 
all  hankerings  after  the  gilded  crumbs  which  fall 
from  the  table  of  power.  Let  us  forget  popular 
fears,  from  whatever  quarter  they  may  spring. 
Let  us  go  to  the  limpid  fountain  of  unadulter- 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1 850.  211 

ated  patriotism,  and,  performing  a  solemn  lus- 
tration, return  divested  of  all  selfish,  sinister, 
and  sordid  impurities,  and  think  alone  of  our 
God,  our  country,  our  consciences,  and  our  glo- 
rious Union — that  Union  without  which  we 
shall  be  torn  into  hostile  fragments,  and  sooner 
or  later  become  the  victims  of  military  des- 
potism, or  foreign  domination.' 

Mr.  President,  what  is  an  individual  man  ? 
An  atom,  almost  invisible  without  a  magnifying 
glass — a  mere  speck  upon  the  surface  of  the  im- 
mense universe ;  not  a  second  in  time,  compared 
to  immeasurable,  never-beginning,  and  never- 
ending  eternity ;  a  drop  of  water  in  the  great 
deep,  which  evaporates  and  is  borne  off  by  the 
winds ;  a  grain  of  sand,  which  is  soon  gathered 
to  the  dust  from  which  it  sprung.  Shall  a  being 
so  small,  so  petty,  so  fleeting,  so  evanescent,, 
oppose  itself  to  the  onward  march  of  a  great 
nation,  which  is  to  subsist  for  ages  and  ages  to- 
come  ;  oppose  itself  to  that  long  line  of  poster- 
ity which,  issuing  from  our  loins,  will  endure 
during  the  existence  of  the  world  ?  Forbid  it, 
God.  Let  us  look  to  our  country  and  our 
cause,  elevate  ourselves  to  the  dignity  of  pure 
and  disinterested  patriots,  and  save  our  country 
from  all  impending  dangers.  What  if,  in  the 


212  ,       HENRY  CLAY. 

march  of  this  nation  to  greatness  and  power, 
we  should  be  buried  beneath  the  wheels  that 
propel  it  onward  !  What  are  we — what  is  any 
man — worth  who  is  not  ready  and  willing  to 
sacrifice  himself  for  the  benefit  of  his  country 
when  it  is  necessary  ?  *  *  * 10 

If  this  Union  shall  become  separated,  new 
unions,  new  confederacies  will  arise.  And  with 
respect  to  this,  if  there  be  any — I  hope  there 
is  no  one  in  the  Senate — before  whose  imagina- 
tion is  flitting  the  idea  of  a  great  Southern  Con- 
federacy to  take  possession  of  the  Balize  and 
the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  I  say  in  my  place 
never !  never  !  NEVER !  will  we  who  occupy  the 
broad  waters  of  the  Mississippi  and  its  upper 
tributaries  consent  that  any  foreign  flag  shall 
float  at  the  Balize  or  upon  the  turrets  of  the 
Crescent  City— NEVER !  NEVER !  I  call  upon  all 
the  South.  Sir,  we  have  had  hard  words, 
bitter  words,  bitter  thoughts,  unpleasant  feel- 
ings toward  each  other  in  the  progress  of  this 
great  measure.  Let  us  forget  them.  Let  us 
sacrifice  these  feelings.  Let  us  go  to  the  altar 
of  our  country  and  swear,  as  the  oath  was  taken 
of  old,  that  we  will  stand  by  her ;  that  we  will 
support  her;  that  we  will  uphold  her  Constitu- 
tion ;  that  we  will  preserve  her  Union ;  and 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1 850.  213 

that  we  will  pass  this  great,  comprehensive, 
and  healing  system  of  measures,  which  will 
hush  all  the  jarring  elements,  and  bring  peace 
and  tranquillity  to  our  homes. 

Let  me,  Mr.  President,  in  conclusion,  say 
that  the  most  disastrous  consequences  would 
occur,  in  my  opinion,  were  we  to  go  home, 
doing  nothing  to  satisfy  and  tranquillize  the 
country  upon  these  great  questions.  What  will 
be  the  judgment  of  mankind,  what  the  judg- 
ment of  that  portion  of  mankind  who  are  look- 
ing upon  the  progress  of  this  scheme  of  self- 
government  as  being  that  which  holds  the 
highest  hopes  and  expectations  of  ameliorating 
the  condition  of  mankind — what  will  their 
judgment  be?  Will  not  all  the  monarchs  of 
the  Old  World  pronounce  our  glorious  Republic 
a  disgraceful  failure  ?  What  will  be  the  judg- 
ment of  our  constituents,  when  we  return  to 
them  and  they  ask  us :  "  How  have  you  left 
your  country?  Is  all  quiet — all  happy?  Are 
all  the  seeds  of  distraction  or  division  crushed 
and  dissipated  ? "  And,  sir,  when  you  come 
into  the  bosom  of  your  family,  when  you  come 
to  converse  with  the  partner  of  your  fortunes, 
of  your  happiness,  and  of  your  sorrows,  and 
when  in  the  midst  of  the  common  offspring  of 


214  HENRY  CLAY. 

both  of  you,  she  asks  you  :  "  Is  there  any  dan- 
ger of  civil  war?  Is  there  any  danger  of  the 
torch  being  applied  to  any  portion  of  the 
country?  Have  you  settled  the  questions 
which  you  have  been  so  long  discussing  and 
deliberating  upon  at  Washington?  Is  all  peace 
and  all  quiet?"  what  response,  Mr.  President, 
can  you  make  to  that  wife  of  your  choice  and 
those  children  with  whom  you  have  been  blessed 
by  God  ?  Will  you  go  home  and  leave  all  in 
disorder  and  confusion — all  unsettled — all  open? 
The  contentions  and  agitations  of  the  past  will 
be  increased  and  augmented  by  the  agitations 
resulting  from  our  neglect  to  decide  them.  Sir, 
we  shall  stand  condemned  by  all  human  judg- 
ment below,  and  of  that  above  it  is  not  for  me 
to  speak.  We  shall  stand  condemned  in  our 
own  consciences,  by  our  own  constituents,  and 
by  our  own  country.  The  measure  may  be  de- 
feated. I  have  been  aware  that  its  passage  for 
many  days  was  not  absolutely  certain.  From 
the  first  to  the  last,  I  hoped  and  believed  it 
would  pass,  because  from  the  first  to  the  last  I 
believed  it  was  founded  on  the  principles  of 
just  and  righteous  concession  of  mutual  concilia- 
tion. I  believe  that  it  deals  unjustly  by  no 
part  of  the  Republic ;  that  it  saves  their  honor, 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1 850.  21$ 

and,  as  far  as  it  is  dependent  upon  Congress, 
saves  the  interests  of  all  quarters  of  the  country. 
But,  sir,  I  have  known  that  the  decision  of  its 
fate  depended  upon  four  or  five  votes  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  whose  ultimate 
judgment  we  could  not  count  upon  the  one  side 
or  the  other  with  absolute  certainty.  Its  fate 
is  now  committed  to  the  Senate,  and  to  those 
five  or  six  votes  to  which  I  have  referred.  It 
may  be  defeated.  It  is  possible  that,  for  the 
chastisement  of  our  sins  and  transgressions,  the 
rod  of  Providence  may  be  still  applied  to  us, 
may  be  still  suspended  over  us.  But,  if  de- 
feated, it  will  be  a  triumph  of  ultraism  and  im- 
practicability— a  triumph  of  a  most  extraordi- 
nary conjunction  of  extremes  ;  a  victory  won  by 
abolitionism  ;  a  victory  achieved  by  freesoilism  ; 
a  victory  of  discord  and  agitation  over  peace 
and  tranquillity ;  and  I  pray  to  Almighty  God 
that  it  may  not,  in  consequence  of  the  inauspi- 
cious result,  lead  to  the  most  unhappy  and  dis- 
astrous consequences  to  our  beloved  country. 

MR.  BARNWELL  : — It  is  not  my  intention  to 
reply  to  the  argument  of  the  Senator  from  Ken- 
tucky, but  there  were  expressions  used  by  him 
not  a  little  disrespectful  to  a  friend  whom  I  hold 
very  dear.  *  *  *  It  is  true  that  his  politi- 


2i6  HENRY  CLAY. 

cal  opinions  differ  very  widely  from  those  of 
the  Senator  from  Kentucky.  It  may  be  true, 
that  he,  with  many  great  statesmen,  may  believe 
that  the  Wilmot  proviso  is  a  grievance  to  be  re- 
sisted "  to  the  utmost  extremity  "  by  those  whose 
rights  it  destroys  and  whose  honor  it  degrades. 
It  is  true  that  he  may  believe  *  *  *  that 
the  admission  of  California  will  be  the  passing 
of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  when  we  here  in  Con- 
gress give  vitality  to  an  act  otherwise  totally 
dead,  and  by  our  legislation  exclude  slavehold- 
ers from  that  whole  broad  territory  on  the 
Pacific  ;  and,  entertaining  this  opinion,  he  may 
have  declared  that  the  contingency  will  then 
have  occurred  which  will,  in  the  judgment  of 
most  of  the  slave-holding  States,  as  expressed  by 
their  resolutions,  justify  resistance  as  to  an  in- 
tolerable aggression.  If  he  does  entertain  and 
has  expressed  such  sentiments,  he  is  not  to  be 
held  up  as  peculiarly  a  disunionist.  Allow  me 
to  say,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  I  regret  that 
you  have  brought  it  about,  but  it  is  true  that 
this  epithet  "  disunionist "  is  likely  soon  to 
have  very  little  terror  in  it  in  the  South.  Words 
do  not  make  things.  "  Rebel  "  was  designed  as 
a  very  odious  term  when  applied  by  those  who 
would  have  trampled  on  the  rights  of  our  an- 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF  1 850.  2 1/ 

cestors,  but  I  believe  that  the  expression  became 
not  an  ungrateful  one  to  the  ears  of  those  who 
resisted  them.  It  was  not  the  lowest  term  of 
abuse  to  call  those  who  were  conscious  that 
they  were  struggling  against  oppression ;  and 
let  me  assure  gentlemen  that  the  term  disun- 
ionist  is  rapidly  assuming  at  the  South  the 
meaning  which  rebel  took  when  it  was  baptized 
in  the  blood  of  Warren  at  Bunker  Hill,  and 
illustrated  by  the  gallantry  of  Jasper  at  Fort 
Moultrie.  *  *  * 

MR.  CLAY: — Mr.  President,  I  said  nothing 
with  respect  to  the  character  of  Mr.  Rhett,  for 
I  might  as  well  name  him.  I  know  him  person- 
ally, and  have  some  respect  for  him.  But,  if 
he  pronounced  the  sentiment  attributed  to  him 
— of  raising  the  standard  of  disunion  and  of  re- 
sistance to  the  common  government,  whatever 
he  has  been,  if  he  follows  up  that  declaration 
by  corresponding  overt  acts,  he  will  be  a  traitor, 
and  I  hope  he  will  meet  the  fate  of  a  traitor." 

THE  PRESIDENT: — The  Chair  will  be  under 
the  necessity  of  ordering  the  gallery  to  be 
cleared  if  there  is  again  the  slightest  interrup- 
tion. He  has  once  already  given  warning  that 
he  is  under  the  necessity  of  keeping  order.  The 
Senate  chamber  is  not  a  theatre. 


2l8  HENRY  CLAY. 

MR.  CLAY  : — Mr.  President,  I  have  heard  with 
pain  and  regret  a  confirmation  of  the  remark  I 
made,  that  the  sentiment  of  disunion  is  becom- 
ing familiar.  I  hope  it  is  confined  to  South 
Carolina.  I  do  not  regard  as  my  duty  what  the 
honorable  Senator  seems  to  regard  as  his.  If 
Kentucky  to-morrow  unfurls  the  banner  of  re- 
sistance unjustly,  I  never  will  fight  under  that 
banner.  I  owe  a  paramount  allegiance  to  the 
whole  Union — a  subordinate  one  to  my  own 
State.  When  my  State  is  right — when  it  has  a 
cause  for  resistance — when  tyranny,  and  wrong, 
and  oppression  insufferable  arise,  I  will  then 
share  her  fortunes  ;  but  if  she  summons  me  to 
the  battle-field,  or  to  support  her  in  any  cause 
which  is  unjust,  against  the  Union,  never,  never 
will  I  engage  with  her  in  such  cause.12 


WENDELL    PHILLIPS,* 

OF   MASSACHUSETTS.- 
(BORN  1811,  DIED  1884.) 


ON  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT, 

BEFORE    THE    MASSACHUSETTS   ANTI-SLAVERY 

SOCIETY,  AT  BOSTON,  JANUARY  27,   1853.' 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  : 

I  have  to  present,  from  the  business  commit- 
tee, the  following  resolution : 

Resolved;  That  the  object  of  this  society  is 
now,  as  it  has  always  been,  to  convince  our 
countrymen,  by  arguments  addressed  to  their 
hearts  and  consciences,  that  slave-holding  is  a 
heinous  crime,  and  that  the  duty,  safety,  and 
interest  of  all  concerned  demand  its  immediate 
abolition  without  expatriation. 

I  wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  notice  some  objec- 
tions that  have  been  made  to  our  course  ever 
since  Mr.  Garrison  began  his  career,  and  which 
have  been  lately  urged  again,  with  considerable 
force  and  emphasis,  in  the  columns  of  the  Lon- 

*  For  notes  on  Phillips,  see  Appendix,  p.  366. 


220  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

don  Leader,  the  able  organ  of  a  very  respectable 
and  influential  class  in  England.  *  *  *'  The 
charges  to  which  I  refer  are  these:  That,  in 
dealing  with  slave-holders  and  their  apologists, 
we  indulge  in  fierce  denunciations,  instead  of 
appealing  to  their  reason  and  common  sense 
by  plain  statements  and  fair  argument ;  that  we 
might  have  won  the  sympathies  and  support  of 
the  nation,  if  we  would  have  submitted  to 
argue  this  question  with  a  manly  patience;  but, 
instead  of  this,  we  have  outraged  the  feelings 
of  the  community  by  attacks,  unjust  and  un- 
necessarily severe,  on  its  most  valued  institu- 
tions, and  gratified  our  spleen  by  indiscriminate 
abuse  of  leading  men,  who  were  often  honest 
in  their  intentions,  however  mistaken  in  their 
views  ;  that  we  have  utterly  neglected  the 
ample  means  that  lay  around  us  to  convert  the 
nation,  submitted  to  no  discipline,  formed  no 
plan,  been  guided  by  no  foresight,  but  hurried 
on  in  childish,  reckless,  blind,  and  hot-headed 
zeal, — bigots  in  the  narrowness  of  our  views, 
and  fanatics  in  our  blind  fury  of  invective  and 
malignant  judgment  of  other  men's  motives. 

There  are  some  who  come  upon  our  platform, 
and  give  us  the  aid  of  names  and  reputations 
less  burdened  than  ours  with  popular  odium, 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  221 

who  are  perpetually  urging  us  to  exercise 
charity  in  our  judgments  of  those  about  us,  and 
to  consent  to  argue  •  these  questions.  These 
men  are  ever  parading  their  wish  to  draw  a  line 
between  themselves  and  us,  because  they  must 
be  permitted  \.Q  wait, — to  trust  more  to  reason 
than  feeling, — to  indulge  a  generous  charity, — 
to  rely  on  the  sure  influence  of  simple  truth, 
uttered  in  love,  etc.,  etc.  I  reject  with  scorn  all 
these  implications  that  our  judgments  are  un- 
charitable,— that  we  are  lacking  in  patience, — 
that  we  have  any  other  dependence  than  on  the 
simple  truth,  spoken  with  Christian  frankness, 
yet  with  Christian  love.  These  lectures,  to  which 
you,  sir,  and  all  of  us,  have  so  often  listened, 
would  be  impertinent,  if  they  were  not  rather 
ridiculous  for  the  gross  ignorance  they  betray  of 
the  community  of  the  cause,  and  of  the  whole 
course  of  its  friends. 

The  article  in  the  Leader  to  which  I  refer  is 
signed  "  ION,"  and  may  be  found  in  the  Libera- 
tor of  December  17,  1852.  *  *  *4  "Ion" 
quotes  Mr  Garrison's  original  declaration  in  the 
Liberator  :  "  I  am  aware  that  many  object  to 
the  severity  of  my  language ;  but  is  there  not 
cause  for  severity  ?  I  will  be  as  harsh  as  truth 
and  as  uncompromising  as  justice.  I  am  in 


222  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

earnest, — I  will  not  equivocate, — I  will  not  ex- 
cuse,— I  will  not  retreat  a  single  inch, — AND  I 
WILL  BE  HEARD.  It  is  pretended  that  I  am  re- 
tarding the  cause  of  emancipation  by  the 
coarseness  of  my  invective  and  the  precipitancy 
of  my  measures.  The  charge  is  not  true.  On 
this  question,  my  influence,  humble  as  it  is, 
is  felt  at  this  moment  to  a  considerable  extent, 
and  shall  be  felt  in  coming  years,  not  per- 
niciously, but  beneficially ;  not  as  a  curse,  but 
as  a  blessing;  and  posterity  will  bear  testimony 
that  I  was  right.  I  desire  to  thank  God  that 
He  enables  me  to  disregard  '  the  fear  of  man 
which  bringeth  a  snare,'  and  to  speak  His  truth 
in  its  simplicity  and  power."  *  *  ** 

"  Ion's  "  charges  are  the  old  ones,  that  we  Ab- 
olitionists are  hurting  our  own  cause  ;  that,  in- 
stead of  waiting  for  the  community  to  come  up 
to  our  views,  and  endeavoring  to  remove  preju- 
dice and  enlighten  ignorance  by  patient  ex- 
planation and  fair  argument,  we  fall  at  once, 
like  children,  to  abusing  every  thing  and  every- 
body; that  we  imagine  zeal  will  supply  the 
place  of  common  sense ;  that  we  have  never 
shown  any  sagacity  in  adapting  our  means  to 
our  ends ;  have  never  studied  the  national 
character,  or  attempted  to  make  use  of  the 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  22$ 

materials  which  lay  all  about  us  to  influence 
public  opinion,  but  by  blind,  childish,  obstinate 
fury  and  indiscriminate  denunciation,  have  be- 
come "  honestly  impotent,  and  conscientious 
hinderances." 

I  claim,  before  you  who  know  the  true  state 
of  the  case,  I  claim  for  the  antislavery  move- 
ment with  which  this  society  is  identified,  that, 
looking  back  over  its  whole  course,  and  con- 
sidering the  men  connected  with  it  in  the  mass, 
it  has  been  marked  by  sound  judgment,  un- 
erring foresight,  the  most  sagacious  adaptation 
of  means  to  ends,  the  strictest  self-discipline, 
the  most  thorough  research,  and  an  amount  of 
patient  and  manly  argument  addressed  to  the 
conscience  and  intellect  of  the  nation,  such  as 
no  other  cause  of  the  kind,  in  England  or  this 
country,  has  ever  offered.  I  claim,  also,  that 
its  course  has  been  marked  by  a  cheerful  sur- 
render of  all  individual  claims  to  merit  or 
leadership, — the  most  cordial  welcoming  of  the 
slightest  effort,  of  every  honest  attempt,  to 
lighten  or  to  break  the  chain  of  the  slave.  I 
need  not  waste  time  by  repeating  the  superflu- 
ous confession  that  we  are  men,  and  therefore 
do  not  claim  to  be  perfect.  Neither  would  I 
be  understood  as  denying  that  we  use  denuncia- 


224  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

tion,  and  ridicule,  and  every  other  weapon  that 
the  human  mind  knows.  We  must  plead 
guilty,  if  there  be  guilt  in  not  knowing  how 
to  separate  the  sin  from  the  sinner.  With  all 
the  fondness  for  abstractions  attributed  to  us, 
we  are  not  yet  capable  of  that.  We  are  fight- 
ing a  momentous  battle  at  desperate  odds, — 
one  against  a  thousand.  Every  weapon  that 
ability  or  ignorance,  wit,  wealth,  prejudice,  or 
fashion  can  command,  is  pointed  against  us. 
The  guns  are  shotted  to  their  lips.  The  ar- 
rows are  poisoned.  Fighting  against  such  an 
array,  we  cannot  afford  to  confine  ourselves  to 
any  one  weapon.  The  cause  is  not  ours,  so  that 
we  might,  rightfully,  postpone  or  put  in  peril 
the  victory  by  moderating  our  demands,  stifling 
our  convictions,  or  filing  down  our  rebukes,  to 
gratify  any  sickly  taste  of  our  own,  or  to  spare 
the  delicate  nerves  of  our  neighbor.  Our  clients 
are  three  millions  of  Christian  slaves,  standing 
dumb  suppliants  at  the  threshold  of  the  Chris- 
tian world.  They  have  no  voice  but  ours  to 
utter  their  complaints,  or  to  demand  justice. 
The  press,  the  pulpit,  the  wealth,  the  literature, 
the  prejudices,  the  political  arrangements,  the 
present  self-interest  of  the  country,  are  all 
against  us.  God  has  given  us  no  weapon  but 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  22$ 

the  truth,  faithfully  uttered,  and  addressed, 
with  the  old  prophets'  directness,  to  the  con- 
science of  the  individual  sinner.  The  elements 
which  control  public  opinion  and  mould  the 
masses  are  against  us.  We  can  but  pick  off 
here  and  there  a  man  from  the  triumphant  ma- 
jority. We  have  facts  for  those  who  think, 
arguments  for  those  who  reason  ;  but  he  who 
cannot  be  reasoned  out  of  his  prejudices  must 
be  laughed  out  of  them  ;  he  who  cannot  be 
argued  out  of  his  selfishness  must  be  shamed 
out  of  it  by  the  mirror  of  his  hateful  self  held 
up  relentlessly  before  his  eyes.  We  live  in  a 
land  where  every  man  makes  broad  his  phylac- 
tery, inscribing  thereon,  "  All  men  are  created 
equal," — "  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  na- 
tions of  men.'r  It  seems  to  us  that  in  such 
a  land  there  must  be,  on  this  question  of 
slavery,  sluggards  to  be  awakened,  as  well  as 
doubters  to  be  convinced.  Many  more,  we 
verily  believe,  of  the  first  than  of  the  last. 
There  are  far  more  dead  hearts  to  be  quick- 
ened, than  confused  intellects  to  be  cleared 
up, — more  dumb  dogs  6  to  be  made  to  speak, 
than  doubting  consciences  to  be  enlightened. 
We  have  use,  then,  sometimes,  for  something 
beside  argument. 

VOL.  II.— 15. 


226  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

What  is  the  denunciation  with  which  we  are 
charged  ?  It  is  endeavoring,  in  our  faltering 
human  speech,  to  declare  the  enormity  of  the 
sin  of  making  merchandize  of  men, — of  sepa- 
rating husband  and  wife, — taking  the  infant 
from  its  mother  and  selling  the  daughter  to 
prostitution, — of  a  professedly  Christian  nation 
denying,  by  statute,  the  Bible  to  every  sixth 
man  and  woman  of  its  population,  and  making 
it  illegal  for  "two  or  three  "  to  meet  together, 
except  a  white  man  be  present !  What  is  this 
harsh  criticism  of  motives  with  which  we  are 
charged  ?  It  is  simply  holding  the  intelligent 
and  deliberate  actor  responsible  for  the  char- 
acter and  consequences  of  his  acts.  Is  there 
any  thing  inherently  wrong  in  such  denuncia- 
tion of  such  criticism  ?  This  we  may  claim, — 
we  have  never  judged  a  man  but  out  of  his  own 
mouth.  We  have  seldom,  if  ever,  held  him  to 
account,  except  for  acts  of  which  he  and  his 
own  friends  were  proud.  All  that  we  ask  the 
world  and  thoughtful  men  to  note  are  the  prin- 
ciples and  deeds  on  which  the  American  pulpit 
and  American  public  men  plume  themselves. 
We  always  allow  our  opponents  to  paint  their 
own  pictures.  Our  humble  duty  is  to  stand  by 
and  assure  the  spectators  that  what  they  would 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  22/ 

take  for  a  knave  or  a  hypocrite  is  really,  in 
American  estimation,  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  or  a 
Secretary  of  State. 

The  South  is  one  great  brothel,  where  half  a 
million  of  women  are  flogged  to  prostitution, 
or,  worse  still,  are  degraded  to  believe  it  honor- 
able. The  public  squares  of  half  our  great 
cities  echo  to  the  wail  of  families  torn  asunder 
at  the  auction-block ;  no  one  of  our  fair  rivers 
that  has  not  closed  over  the  negro  seeking  in 
death  a  refuge  from  a  life  too  wretched  to  bear ; 
thousands  of  fugitives  skulk  along  our  high- 
ways, afraid  to  tell  their  names,  and  trembling 
at  the  sight  of  a  human  being ;  free  men  are 
kidnapped  in  our  streets,  to  be  plunged  into 
that  hell  of  slavery  ;  and  now  and  then  one,  as 
if  by  miracle,  after  long  years  returns  to  make 
men  aghast  with  his  tale.  The  press  says,  "  It 
is  all  right'*;  and  the  pulpit  cries,  "Amen/" 
They  print  the  Bible  in  every  tongue  in  which 
man  utters  his  prayers ;  and  they  get  the 
money  to  do  so  by  agreeing  never  to  give  the 
book,  in  the  language  our  mothers  taught  us, 
to  any  negro,  free  or  bond,  south  of  Mason 
and  Dixon's  line.  The  press  says,  "  It  is  all 
right " ;  and  the  pulpit  cries,  "  Amen."  The 
slave  lifts  up  his  imploring  eyes,  and  sees  in 


228  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

every  face  but  ours  the  face  of  an  enemy. 
Prove  to  me  now  that  harsh  rebuke,  indignant 
denunciation,  scathing  sarcasm,  and  pitiless 
ridicule  are  wholly  and  always  unjustifiable ; 
else  we  dare  not,  in  so  desperate  a  case,  throw 
away  any  weapon  which  ever  broke  up  the 
crust  of  an  ignorant  prejudice,  roused  a  slum- 
bering conscience,  shamed  a  proud  sinner,  or 
changed  in  any  way  the  conduct  of  a  human 
being.  Our  aim  is  to  alter  public  opinion.  Did 
we  live  in  a  market,  our  talk  should  be  of  dol- 
lars and  cents,  and  we  would  seek  to  prove  only 
that  slavery  was  an  unprofitable  investment. 
Were  the  nation  one  great,  pure  church,  we 
would  sit  down  and  reason  of  "  righteousness, 
temperance,  and  judgment  to  come."  Had  slav- 
ery fortified  itself  in  a  college,  we  would  load 
our  cannons  with  cold  facts,  and  wing  our  ar- 
rows with  arguments.  But  we  happen  to  live 
in  the  world, — the  world  made  up  of  thought 
and  impulse,  of  self-conceit  and  self-interest,  of 
weak  men  and  wicked.  To  conquer,  we  must 
reach  all.  Our  object  is  not  to  make  every  man 
a  Christian  or  a  philosopher,  but  to  induce  every 
one  to  aid  in  the  abolition  of  slavery.  We  ex- 
pect to  accomplish  our  object  long  before  the 
nation  is  made  over  into  saints  or  elevated  into 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  229 

philosophers.  To  change  public  opinion,  we 
use  the  very  tools  by  which  it  was  formed. 
That  is,  all  such  as  an  honest  man  may  touch. 

All  this  I  am  not  only  ready  to  allow,  but  I 
should  be  ashamed  to  think  of  the  slave,  or  to 
look  into  the  face  of  my  fellow-man,  if  it  were 
otherwise.  It  is  the  only  thing  which  justifies 
us  to  our  own  consciences,  and  makes  us  able 
to  say  we  have  done,  or  at  least  tried  to  do,  our 
duty. 

So  far,  however  you  distrust  my  philosophy, 
you  will  not  doubt  my  statements.  That  we 
have  denounced  and  rebuked  with  unsparing 
fidelity  will  not  be  denied.  Have  we  not  also 
addressed  ourselves  to  that  other  duty,  of  argu- 
ing our  question  thoroughly  ? — of  using  due 
discretion  and  fair  sagacity  in  endeavoring  to 
promote  our  cause?  Yes,  we  have.  Every 
statement  we  have  made  has  been  doubted. 
Every  principle  we  have  laid  down  has  been 
denied  by  overwhelming  majorities  against  us. 
No  one  step  has  ever  been  gained  but  by  the 
most  laborious  research  and  the  most  exhaust- 
ing argument.  And  no  question  has  ever,  since 
Revolutionary  days,  been  so  thoroughly  inves- 
tigated or  argued  here,  as  that  of  slavery.  Of 
that  research  and  that  argument,  of  the  whole 


230  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

of  it,  the  old-fashioned,  fanatical,  crazy  Garri- 
sonian  antislavery  movement  has  been  the 
author.  From  this  band  of  men  has  proceeded 
every  important  argument  or  idea  which  has 
been  broached  on  the  antislavery  question  from 
1830  to  the  present  time.  I  am  well  aware  of 
the  extent  of  the  claim  I  make.  I  recognize, 
as  fully  as  any  one  can,  the  ability  of  the  new 
laborers,  the  eloquence  and  genius  with  which 
they  have  recommended  this  cause  to  the  na- 
tion, and  flashed  conviction  home  on  the  con- 
science of  the  community.  I  do  not  mean, 
either,  to  assert  that  they  have  in  every  instance 
borrowed  from  our  treasury  their  facts  and  argu- 
ments. Left  to  themselves,  they  would  proba- 
bly have  looked  up  the  one  and  originated  the 
other.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  they  have 
generally  made  use  of  the  materials  collected  to 
their  hands.  *  *  *7  When  once  brought 
fully  into  the  struggle,  they  have  found  it 
necessary  to  adopt  the  same  means,  to  rely  on 
the  same  arguments,  to  hold  up  the  same  men 
and  the  same  measures  to  public  reprobation, 
with  the  same  bold  rebuke  and  unsparing  invec- 
tive that  we  have  used.  All  their  conciliatory 
bearing,  their  painstaking  moderation,  their  con- 
stant and  anxious  endeavor  to  draw  a  broad  line 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  23  £ 

between  their  camp  and  ours,  have  been  thrown 
away.  Just  so  far  as  they  have  been  effective 
laborers,  they  have  found,  as  we  have,  their 
hands  against  every  man,  and  every  man's  hand 
against  them.  The  most  experienced  of  them 
are  ready  to  acknowledge  that  our  plan  has 
been  wise,  our  course  efficient,  and  that  our  un- 
popularity is  no  fault  of  ours,  but  flows  neces- 
sarily and  unavoidably  from  our  position.  "  I 
should  suspect,"  says  old  Fuller,  "  that  his 
preaching  had  no  salt  in  it,  if  no  galled  horse 
did  wince."  Our  friends  find,  after  all,  that 
men  do  not  so  much  hate  us  as  the  truth  we 
utter  and  the  light  we  bring.  They  find  that 
the  community  are  not  the  honest  seekers  after 
truth  which  they  fancied,  but  selfish  politicians 
and  sectarian  bigots,  who  shiver,  like  Alexan- 
der's butler,  whenever  the  sun  shines  on  them. 
Experience  has  driven  these  new  laborers  back 
to  our  method.  We  have  no  quarrel  with  them 
— would  not  steal  one  wreath  of  their  laurels. 
All  we  claim  is,  that,  if  they  are  to  be  compli- 
mented as  prudent,  moderate,  Christian,  saga- 
cious, statesmanlike  reformers,  we  deserve  the 
same  praise ;  for  they  have  done  nothing  that 
we,  in  our  measure,  did  not  attempt  before. 
I  claim  this,  that  the  cause,  in  its  recent  as- 


232  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

pect,  has  put  on  nothing  but  timidity.  It  has 
taken  to  itself  no  new  weapons  of  recent  years ; 
it  has  become  more  compromising, — that  is  all ! 
It  has  become  neither  more  persuasive,  more 
earnest,  more  Christian,  more  charitable,  nor 
more  effective  than  for  the  twenty  years  pre- 
ceding. Mr.  Hale,  the  head  of  the  Free  Soil 
movement,  after  a  career  in  the  Senate  that 
would  do  honor  to  any  man, — after  a  six  years' 
course  which  entitles  him  to  the  respect  and 
confidence  of  the  antislavery  public,  can  put 
his  name,  within  the  last  month,  to  an  appeal 
from  the  city  of  Washington,  signed  by  a 
Houston  and  a  Cass,  for  a  monument  to  be 
raised  to  Henry  Clay  !  If  that  be  the  test  of 
charity  and  courtesy,  we  cannot  give  it  to  the 
world.  Some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Free  Soil 
party  of  Massachusetts,  after  exhausting  the 
whole  capacity  of  our  language  to  paint  the 
treachery  of  Daniel  Webster  to  the  cause  of 
liberty,  and  the  evil  they  thought  he  was  able 
and  seeking  to  do, — after  that,  could  feel  it  in 
their  hearts  to  parade  themselves  in  the  funeral 
procession  got  up  to  do  him  honor !  In  this 
we  allow  we  cannot  follow  them.  The  defer- 
ence which  every  gentleman  owes  to  the  proprie- 
ties of  social  life,  that  self-respect  and  regard  to 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  233 

consistency  which  is  every  man's  duty, — these,  if 
no  deeper  feelings,  will  ever  prevent  us  from 
giving  such  proofs  of  this  newly  invented 
Christian  courtesy.  We  do  not  play  politics, 
antislavery  is  no  half-jest  with  us ;  it  is  a  terri- 
ble earnest,  with  life  or  death,  worse  than  life 
or  death,  on  the  issue.  It  is  no  lawsuit,  where 
it  matters  not  to  the  good  feeling  of  opposing 
counsel  which  way  the  verdict  goes,  and  where 
advocates  can  shake  hands  after  the  decision  as 
pleasantly  as  before.  When  we  think  of  such  a 
man  as  Henry  Clay,  his  long  life,  his  mighty 
influence  cast  always  into  the  scale  against  the 
slave,  of  that  irresistible  fascination  with  which 
he  moulded  every  one  to  his  will ;  when  we  re- 
member that,  his  conscience  acknowledging  the 
justice  of  our  cause,  and  his  heart  open  on  every 
other  side  to  the  gentlest  impulses,  he  could 
sacrifice  so  remorselessly  his  convictions  and 
the  welfare  of  millions  to  his  low  ambition ; 8 
when  we  think  how  the  slave  trembled  at  the 
sound  of  his  voice,  and  that,  from  a  multitude 
of  breaking  hearts  there  went  up  nothing  but 
gratitude  to  God  when  it  pleased  him  to  call 
that  great  sinner  from  this  world,  we  cannot 
find  it  in  our  hearts,  we  could  not  shape  our 
lips  to  ask  any  man  to  do  him  honor.  No 


234  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

amount  of  eloquence,  no  sheen  of  official  posi- 
tion, no  loud  grief  of  partisan  friends,  would 
ever  lead  us  to  ask  monuments  or  walk  in  fine 
processions  for  pirates  ;  and  the  sectarian  zeal 
or  selfish  ambition  which  gives  up,  deliberately 
and  in  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  three  million 
of  human  beings  to  hopeless  ignorance,  daily 
robbery,  systematic  prostitution,  and  murder, 
which  the  law  is  neither  able  nor  undertakes  to 
prevent  or  avenge,  is  more  monstrous,  in  our 
eyes,  than  the  love  of  gold  which  takes  a  score 
of  lives  with  merciful  quickness  on  the  high 
seas.  Haynau  '  on  the  Danube  is  no  more 
hateful  to  us  than  Haynau  on  the  Potomac. 
Why  give  mobs  to  one  and  monuments  to  the 
other? 

If  these  things  be  necessary  to  courtesy,  I 
cannot  claim  that  we  are  courteous.  We  seek 
only  to  be  honest  men,  and  speak  the  same  of 
the  dead  as  of  the  living.  If  the  grave  that 
hides  their  bodies  could  swallow  also  the  evil 
they  have  done  and  the  example  they  leave, 
we  might  enjoy  at  least  the  luxury  of  forget- 
ting them.  But  the  evil  that  men  do  lives 
after  them,  and  example  acquires  tenfold  au- 
thority when  it  speaks  from  the  grave.  His- 
tory, also,  is  to  be  written.  How  shall  a  feeble 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  235 

minority,  without  weight  or  influence  in  the 
country,  with  no  jury  of  millions  to  appeal  to, 
— denounced,  vilified,  and  contemned, — how 
shall  we  make  way  against  the  overwhelming 
weight  of  some  colossal  reputation,  if  we  do 
not  turn  from  the  idolatrous  present,  and  ap- 
peal to  the  human  race  ?  saying  to  your  idols 
of  to-day  :  "  Here  we  are  defeated  ;  but  we  will 
write  our  judgment  with  the  iron  pen  of  a  cen- 
tury to  come,  and  it  shall  never  be  forgotten,  if 
we  can  help  it,  that  you  were  false  in  your 
generation  to  the  claims  of  the  slave  !  "  *  *  * 10 
We  are  weak  here, — out-talked,  out-voted. 
You  load  our  names  with  infamy,  and  shout  us 
down.  But  our  words  bide  their  time.  We 
warn  the  living  that  we  have  terrible  memories, 
and  their  sins  are  never  to  be  forgotten.  We 
will  gibbet  the  name  of  every  apostate  so  black 
and  high  that  his  children's  children  shall  blush 
to  bear  it.  Yet  we  bear  no  malice, — cherish  no 
resentment.  We  thank  God  that  the  love  of 
fame,  "  that  last  infirmity  of  noble  minds,"  is 
shared  by  the  ignoble.  In  our  necessity,  we 
seize  this  weapon  in  the  slave's  behalf,  and 
teach  caution  to  the  living  by  meting  out  re- 
lentless justice  to  the  dead.  *  *  *  "  These, 
Mr.  Chairman,  are  the  reasons  why  we  take 


236  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

care  that  "  the  memory  of  the  wicked  shall 
rot."  " 

I  have  claimed  that  the  antislavery  cause 
has,  from  the  first,  been  ably  and  dispassion- 
ately argued,  every  objection  candidly  exam- 
ined, and  every  difficulty  or  doubt  anywhere 
honestly  entertained  treated  with  respect. 
Let  me  glance  at  the  literature  of  the  cause, 
and  try  not  so  much,  in  a  brief  hour,  to  prove 
this  assertion,  as  to  point  out  the  sources 
from  which  any  one  may  satisfy  himself  of  its 
truth. 

I  will  begin  with  certainly  the  ablest  and  per- 
haps the  most  honest  statesman  who  has  ever 
touched  the  slave  question.  Any  one  who  will 
examine  John  Quincy  Adams'  speech  on  Texas, 
in  1838,  will  see  that  he  was  only  seconding  the 
full  and  able  exposure  of  the  Texas  plot,  pre- 
pared by  Benjamin  Lundy,  to  one  of  whose 
pamphlets  Dr.  Channing,  in  his  "  Letter  to 
Henry  Clay,"  has  confessed  his  obligation. 
Every  one  acquainted  with  those  years  will 
allow  that  the  North  owes  its  earliest  knowledge 
and  first  awakening  on  that  subject  to  Mr. 
Lundy,  who  made  long  journeys  and  devoted 
years  to  the  investigation.  His  labors  have 
this  attestation,  that  they  quickened  the  zeal 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT. 


and  strengthened  the  hands  of  such  men  as 
Adams  and  Channing.  I  have  been  told  that 
Mr.  Lundy  prepared  a  brief  for  Mr.  Adams, 
and  furnished  him  the  materials  for  his  speech 
on  Texas.13 

Look  next  at  the  right  of  petition.  Long 
before  any  member  of  Congress  had  opened  his 
mouth  in  its  defence,  the  Abolition  presses  and 
lecturers  had  examined  and  defended  the  limits 
of  this  right  with  profound  historical  research 
and  eminent  constitutional  ability.  So  thor- 
oughly had  the  work  been  done,  that  all  classes 
of  the  people  had  made  up  their  minds  about  it 
long  before  any  speaker  of  eminence  had 
touched  it  in  Congress.  The  politicians  were 
little  aware  of  this.  When  Mr.  Adams  threw 
himself  so  gallantly  into  the  breach,  it  is  said 
he  wrote  anxiously  home  to  know  whether  he 
would  be  supported  in  Massachusetts,  little 
aware  of  the  outburst  of  popular  gratitude 
which  the  northern  breeze  was  even  then  bring- 
ing him,  deep  and  cordial  enough  to  wipe  away 
the  old  grudge  Massachusetts  had  borne  him  so 
long.14  Mr.  Adams  himself  was  only  in  favor 
of  receiving  the  petitions,  and  advised  to  refuse 
their  prayer,  which  was  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.  He  doubted  the 


238  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

power  of  Congress  to  abolish.  His  doubts 
were  examined  by  Mr.  William  Goodell,  in  two 
letters  of  most  acute  logic,  and  of  masterly 
ability.  If  Mr.  Adams  still  retained  his  doubts, 
it  is  certain  at  least  that  he  never  expressed 
them  afterward.  When  Mr.  Clay  paraded  the 
same  objections,  the  whole  question  of  the 
power  of  Congress  over  the  District  was  treated 
by  Theodore  D.  Weld  in  the  fullest  manner, 
and  with  the  widest  research, — indeed,  leaving 
nothing  to  be  added :  an  argument  which  Dr. 
Channing  characterized  as  "  demonstration/* 
and  pronounced  the  essay  "  one  of  the  ablest 
pamphlets  from  the  American  press."  No 
answer  was  ever  attempted.  The  best  proof  of 
its  ability  is  that  no  one  since  has  presumed  to 
doubt  the  power.  Lawyers  and  statesmen 
have  tacitly  settled  down  into  its  full  acknowl- 
edgment. 

The  influence  of  the  Colonization  Society 
on  the  welfare  of  the  colored  race  was  the  first 
question  our  movement  encountered.  To  the 
close  logic,  eloquent  appeals,  and  fully  sus- 
tained charges  of  Mr.  Garrison's  letters  on 
that  subject  no  answer  was  ever  made.  Judge 
Jay  followed  with  a  work  full  and  able,  estab- 
lishing every  charge  by  the  most  patient  in- 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  239 

vestigation  of  facts.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
of  these  two  volumes,  that  they  left  the  Coloni- 
zation Society  hopeless  at  the  North.  It  dares 
never  show  its  face  before  the  people,  and  only 
lingers  in  some  few  nooks  of  sectarian  pride,  so 
secluded  from  the  influence  of  present  ideas  as 
to  be  almost  fossil  in  their  character. 

The  practical  working  of  the  slave  system, 
the  slave  laws,  the  treatment  of  slaves,  their 
food,  the  duration  of  their  lives,  their  ignorance 
and  moral  condition,  and  the  influence  of 
Southern  public  opinion  on  their  fate,  have 
been  spread  out  in  a  detail  and  with  a  fulness 
of  evidence  which  no  subject  has  ever  received 
before  in  this  country.  Witness  the  words 
of  Phelps,  Bourne,  Rankin,  Grimke,  the  Anti- 
slavery  Record,  and,  above  all,  that  encyclo- 
paedia of  facts  and  storehouse  of  arguments, 
the  Thousand  Witnesses  of  Mr.  Theodore  D. 
Weld.  He  also  prepared  that  full  and  valuable 
tract  for  the  World's  Convention  called  Slavery 
and  the  Internal  Slave-Trade  in  the  United 
States,  published  in  London  in  1841.  Unique 
in  antislavery  literature  is  Mrs.  Child's  Appeal, 
one  of  the  ablest  of  our  weapons,  and  one  of 
the  finest  efforts  of  her  rare  genius. 

The  Princeton  Review,  I  believe,  first  chal- 


240  IVENDELL   PHILLIPS. 

lenged  the  Abolitionists  to  an  investigation  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible  on  slavery.  That 
field  had  been  somewhat  broken  by  our  English 
predecessors.  But  in  England  the  pro-slavery 
party  had  been  soon  shamed  out  of  the  attempt 
to  drag  the  Bible  into  their  service,  and  hence 
the  discussion  there  had  been  short  and  some- 
what superficial.  The  pro-slavery  side  of  the 
question  has  been  eagerly  sustained  by  theo- 
logical reviews  and  doctors  of  divinity  without 
number,  from  the  half-way  and  timid  faltering 
of  Wayland  up  to  the  unblushing  and  melan- 
choly recklessness  of  Stuart.  The  argument 
on  the  other  side  has  come  wholly  from  the 
Abolitionists;  for  neither  Dr.  Hague  nor  Dr. 
Barnes  can  be  said  to  have  added  any  thing  to 
the  wide  research,  critical  acumen,  and  compre- 
hensive views  of  Theodore  D.  Weld,  Beriah 
Green,  J.  G.  Fee,  and  the  old  work  of  Duncan. 
On  the  constitutional  questions  which  have 
at  various  times  arisen, — the  citizenship  of  the 
colored  man,  the  soundness  of  the  "  Prigg  "  de- 
cision,16 the  constitutionality  of  the  old  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  the  true  construction  of  the  slave- 
surrender  clause, — nothing  has  been  added, 
either  in  the  way  of  fact  or  argument,  to  the 
works  of  Jay,  Weld,  Alvan  Stewart,  E.  G.  Lor- 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  24! 

ing,  S.  E.  Sewall,  Richard  Hildreth,  W.  I.  Bow- 
ditch,  the  masterly  essays  of  the  Emancipator 
at  New  York  and  the  Liberator  at  Boston,  and 
the  various  addresses  of  the  Massachusetts  and 
American  Societies  for  the  last  twenty  years. 
The  idea  of  the  antislavery  character  of  the 
Constitution, — the  opiate  with  which  Free  Soil 
quiets  its  conscience  for  voting  under  a  pro- 
slavery  government, — I  heard  first  suggested  by 
Mr.  Garrison  in  1838.  It  was  elaborately  ar- 
gued that  year  in  all  our  antislavery  gatherings, 
both  here  and  in  New  York,  and  sustained  with 
great  ability  by  Alvan  Stewart,  and  in  part  by 
T.  D.  Weld.  The  antislavery  construction  of 
the  Constitution  was  ably  argued  in  1836,  in 
the  Antislavery  Magazine,  by  Rev.  Samuel  J. 
May,  one  of  the  very  first  to  seek  the  side  of 
Mr.  Garrison,  and  pledge  to  the  slave  his  life 
and  efforts, — a  pledge  which  thirty  years  of 
devoted  labors  have  redeemed.  If  it  has  either 
merit  or  truth,  they  are  due  to  no  legal  learning 
recently  added  to  our  ranks,  but  to  some  of  the 
old  and  well-known  pioneers.  This  claim  has 
since  received  the  fullest  investigation  from 
Mr.  Lysander  Spooner,  who  has  urged  it  with 
all  his  unrivalled  ingenuity,  laborious  research, 
and  close  logic.  He  writes  as  a  lawyer,  and 

VOL.  II.— 16 


242  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

has  no  wish,  I  believe,  to  be  ranked  with  any 
class  of  anti-slavery  men. 

The  influence  of  slavery  on  our  Government 
has  received  the  profoundest  philosophical  in- 
vestigation from  the  pen  of  Richard  Hildreth, 
in  his  invaluable  essay  on  Despotism  in  Amer- 
ica,— a  work  which  deserves  a  place  by  the 
side  of  the  ablest  political  disquisitions  of 
any  age. 

Even  the  vigorous  mind  of  Rantoul,  the 
ablest  man,  without  doubt,  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  perhaps  the  ripest  politician  in  New 
England,  added  little  or  nothing  to  the  store- 
house of  antislavery  argument.  *  *  *18  His 
speeches  on  our  question,  too  short  and  too 
few,  are  remarkable  for  their  compact  state- 
ment, iron  logic,  bold  denunciation,  and  the 
wonderful  light  thrown  back  upon  our  history. 
Yet  how  little  do  they  present  which  was  not 
familiar  for  years  in  our  anti-slavery  meetings ! 
Look,  too,  at  the  last  great  effort  of  the  idol  of 
so  many  thousands, — Mr.  Senator  Sumner, — 
the  discussion  of  a  great  national  question," 
of  which  it  has  been  said  that  we  must  go 
back  to  Webster's  reply  to  Hayne,  and  Fisher 
Ames  on  the  Jay  treaty,  to  find  its  equal  in  Con- 
gress,— praise  which  we  might  perhaps  qualify,  if 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  243 

any  adequate  report  were  left  us  of  some  of  the 
noble  orations  of  Adams.  No  one  can  be  blind 
to  the  skilful  use  he  has  made  of  his  materials, 
the  consummate  ability  with  which  he  has  mar- 
shalled them,  and  the  radiant  glow  which  his 
genius  has  thrown  over  all.  Yet,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  his  reference  to  the  antislavery  de- 
bate in  Congress  in  1817,  there  is  hardly  a  train 
of  thought  or  argument,  and  no  single  fact  in 
the  whole  speech,  which  has  not  been  familiar 
in  our  meetings  and  essays  for  the  last  ten 
years.  *  *  *18 

The  relations  of  the  American  Church  to 
slavery,  and  the  duties  of  private  Christians, 
the  whole  casuistry  of  this  portion  of  the  ques- 
tion, so  momentous  among  descendants  of  the 
Puritans, — have  been  discussed  with  great 
acuteness  and  rare  common-sense  by  Messrs. 
Garrison,  Goodell,  Gerrit  Smith,  Pillsbury,  and 
Foster.  They  have  never  attempted  to  judge 
the  American  Church  by  any  standard  except 
that  which  she  has  herself  laid  down, — never 
claimed  that  she  should  be  perfect,  but  have 
contented  themselves  by  demanding  that  she 
should  be  consistent.  They  have  never  judged 
her  except  out  of  her  own  mouth,  and  on  facts 
asserted  by  her  own  presses  and  leaders.  The 


244  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

sundering  of  the  Methodist  and  Baptist  de- 
nominations, and  the  universal  agitation  of 
the  religious  world,  are  the  best  proof  of  the 
sagacity  with  which  their  measures  have  been 
chosen,  the  cogent  arguments  they  have  used, 
and  the  indisputable  facts  on  which  their  criti- 
cisms have  been  founded.  In  nothing  have  the 
Abolitionists  shown  more  sagacity  or  more 
thorough  knowledge  of  their  countrymen  than 
in  the  course  they  have  pursued  in  relation  to 
the  Church.  None  but  a  New-Englander  can 
appreciate  the  power  which  church  organiza- 
tions wield  over  all  who  share  the  blood  of  the 
Puritans.  The  influence  of  each  sect  over  its 
own  members  is  overwhelming,  often  shutting 
out,  or  controlling,  all  other  influences.  We 
have  Popes  here,  all  the  more  dangerous  be*, 
cause  no  triple  crown  puts  you  on  your  guard. 
*  *  * 19  In  such  a  land,  the  Abolitionists 
early  saw,  that,  for  a  moral  question  like  theirs, 
only  two  paths  lay  open  :  to  work  through  the 
Church ;  that  failing,  to  join  battle  with  it. 
Some  tried  long,  like  Luther,  to  be  Protestants, 
and  yet  not  come  out  of  Catholicism  ;  but  their 
eyes  were  soon  opened.  Since  then  we  have 
been  convinced  that,  to  come  out  from  the 
Church,  to  hold  her  up  as  the  bulwark  of 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  245 

slavery,  and  to  make  her  shortcomings  the 
main  burden  of  our  appeals  to  the  religious 
sentiment  of  the  community,  was  our  first  duty 
and  best  policy.  This  course  alienated  many 
friends,  and  was  a  subject  of  frequent  rebuke 
from  such  men  as  Dr.  Channing.  But  nothing 
has  ever  more  strengthened  the  cause,  or  won 
it  more  influence  ;  and  it  has  had  the  healthiest 
effect  on  the  Church  itself.  *  *  *  80 

Unable  to  command  a  wide  circulation  for 
our  books  and  journals,  we  have  been  obliged 
to  bring  ourselves  into  close  contact  with  the 
people,  and  to  rely  mainly  on  public  addresses. 
These  have  been  our  most  efficient  instrumen- 
tality. For  proof  that  these  addresses  have 
been  full  of  pertinent  facts,  sound  sense,  and 
able  arguments,  we  must  necessarily  point  to 
results,  and  demand  to  be  tried  by  our  fruits. 
Within  these  last  twenty  years  it  has  been  very 
rare  that  any  fact  stated  by  our  lecturers  has 
been  disproved,  or  any  statement  of  theirs  suc- 
cessfully impeached.  And  for  evidence  of  the 
soundness,  simplicity,  and  pertinency  of  their 
arguments  we  can  only  claim  that  our  converts 
and  co-laborers  throughout  the  land  have  at 
least  the  reputation  of  being  specially  able  "  to 
give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  them." 


246  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

I  remember  that  when,  in  1845,  the  present 
leaders  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  with  Daniel 
Webster  in  their  company,  met  to  draw  up  the 
Anti-Texas  Address  of  the  Massachusetts  Con- 
vention, they  sent  to  Abolitionists  for  anti- 
slavery  facts  and  history,  for  the  remarkable 
testimonies  of  our  Revolutionary  great  men 
which  they  wished  to  quote.  When,  many 
years  ago,  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts 
wished  to  send  to  Congress  a  resolution  affirm- 
ing the  duty  of  immediate  emancipation,  the 
committee  sent  to  William  Lloyd  Garrison  to 
draw  it  up,  and  it  stands  now  on  our  statute- 
book  as  he  drafted  it. 

How  vigilantly,  how  patiently,  did  we  watch 
the  Texas  plot  from  its  commencement !  The 
politic  South  felt  that  its  first  move  had  been 
too  bold,  and  thenceforward  worked  under- 
ground. For  many  a  year  men  laughed  at  us 
for  entertaining  any  apprehensions.  It  was 
impossible  to  rouse  the  North  to  its  peril. 
David  Lee  Child  was  thought  crazy  because  he 
would  not  believe  there  was  no  danger.  His 
elaborate  "  Letters  on  Texas  Annexation  "  are 
the  ablest  and  most  valuable  contribution  that 
has  been  made  toward  a  history  of  the  whole 
plot.  Though  we  foresaw  and  proclaimed  our 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.          247 

conviction  that  annexation  would  be,  in  the 
end,  a  fatal  step  for  the  South,  we  did  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  relax  our  opposition,  well  know- 
ing the  vast  increase  of  strength  it  would  give, 
at  first,  to  the  slave  power.  I  remember  being 
one  of  a  committee  which  waited  on  Abbott 
Lawrence,  a  year  or  so  only  before  annexation, 
to  ask  his  countenance  to  some  general  move- 
ment, without  distinction  of  party,  against  the 
Texas  scheme.  He  smiled  at  our  fears,  begged 
us  to  have  no  apprehensions  ;  stating  that  his 
correspondence  with  leading  men  at  Washing- 
ton enabled  him  to  assure  us  annexation  was 
impossible,  and  that  the  South  itself  was  de- 
termined to  defeat  the  project.  A  short  time 
after,  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Texas 
took  their  seats  in  Congress ! 

Many  of  these  services  to  the  slave  were 
done  before  I  joined  his  cause.  In  thus  re- 
ferring to  them,  do  not  suppose  me  merely 
seeking  occasion  of  eulogy  on  my  predeces- 
sors and  present  co-laborers.  I  recall  these 
things  only  to  rebut  the  contemptuous  criti- 
cism which  some  about  us  make  the  excuse  for 
their  past  neglect  of  the  movement,  and  in 
answer  to  "  Ion's  "  representation  of  our  course 
as  reckless  fanaticism,  childish  impatience,  ut- 


248  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

ter  lack  of  good  sense,  and  of  our  meetings  as 
scenes  only  of  excitement,  of  reckless  and  in- 
discriminate denunciation.  I  assert  that  every 
social,  moral,  economical,  religious,  political, 
and  historical  aspect  of  the  question  has  been 
ably  and  patiently  examined.  And  all  this  has 
been  done  with  an  industry  and  ability  which 
have  left  little  for  the  professional  skill,  schol- 
arly culture,  and  historical  learning  of  the  new 
laborers  to  accomplish.  If  the  people  are  still 
in  doubt,  it  is  from  the  inherent  difficulty  of 
the  subject,  or  a  hatred  of  light,  not  from  want 
of  it.  *  *  *" 

Sir,  when  a  nation  sets  itself  to  do  evil,  and 
all  its  leading  forces,  wealth,  party,  and  piety, 
join  in  the  career,  it  is  impossible  but  that  those 
who  offer  a  constant  opposition  should  be  hated 
and  maligned,  no  matter  how  wise,  cautious, 
and  well  planned  their  course  may  be.  We  are 
peculiar  sufferers  in  this  way.  The  community 
has  come  to  hate  its  reproving  Nathan  so  bit- 
terly, that  even  those  whom  the  relenting  part 
of  it  are  beginning  to  regard  as  standard- 
bearers  of  the  antislavery  host  think  it  unwise 
to  avow  any  connection  or  sympathy  with  him. 
I  refer  to  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  political 
movement  against  slavery.  They  feel  it  to  be 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  249 

their  mission  to  marshal  and  use  as  effectively 
as  possible  the  present  convictions  of  the  peo- 
ple. They  cannot  afford  to  encumber  them- 
selves with  the  odium  which  twenty  years  of 
angry  agitation  have  engendered  in  great  sects 
sore  from  unsparing  rebuke,  parties  galled  by 
constant  defeat,  and  leading  men  provoked  by 
unexpected  exposure.  They  are  willing  to 
confess,  privately,  that  our  movement  pro- 
duced theirs,  and  that  its  continued  existence 
is  the  very  breath  of  their  life.  But,  at  the 
same  time,  they  would  fain  walk  on  the  road 
without  being  soiled  by  too  close  contact  with 
the  rough  pioneers  who  threw  it  up.  They  are 
wise  and  honorable,  and  their  silence  is  very 
expressive. 

When  I  speak  of  their  eminent  position  and 
acknowledged  ability,  another  thought  strikes 
me.  Who  converted  these  men  and  their  dis- 
tinguished associates  ?  It  is  said  we  have 
shown  neither  sagacity  in  plans,  nor  candor  in 
discussion,  nor  ability.  Who,  then,  or  what 
converted  Burlingame  and  Wilson,  Sumner  and 
Adams,  Palfrey  and  Mann,  Chase  and  Hale,  and 
Phillips  and  Giddings  ?  Who  taught  the  Chris- 
tian Register,  the  Daily  Advertiser,  and  that 
class  of  prints,  that  there  were  such  things  as  a 


250  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

slave  and  a  slave-holder  in  the  land,  and  so  gave 
them  some  more  intelligent  basis  than  their 
mere  instincts  to  hate  William  Lloyd  Garrison? 
What  magic  wand  was  it  whose  touch  made 
the  todying  servility  of  the  land  start  up  the 
real  demon  that  it  was,  and  at  the  same  time 
gathered  into  the  slave's  service  the  professional 
ability,  ripe  culture,  and  personal  integrity 
which  grace  the  Free  Soil  ranks  ?  We  never 
argue  !  These  men,  then,  were  converted  by 
simple  denunciation  !  They  were  all  converted 
by  the  "  hot,"  "  reckless,"  "  ranting,"  "  bigoted," 
"  fanatic  "  Garrison,  who  never  troubled  him- 
self about  facts,  nor  stopped  to  argue  with  an 
opponent,  but  straightway  knocked  him  down  ! 
My  old  and  valued  friend,  Mr.  Sumner,  often 
boasts  that  he  was  a  reader  of  the  Liberator 
before  I  was.  Do  not  criticise  too  much  the 
agency  by  which  such  men  were  converted. 
That  blade  has  a  double  edge.  Our  reckless 
course,  our  empty  rant,  our  fanaticism,  has 
made  Abolitionists  of  some  of  the  best  and 
ablest  men  in  the  land.  We  are  inclined  to 
go  on,  and  see  if,  even  with  such  poor  tools,  we 
cannot  make  some  more.  Antislavery  zeal  and 
the  roused  conscience  of  the  "  godless  come- 
outers  "  made  the  trembling  South  demand  the 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT. 


Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  "  provoked  "  Mrs.  Stowe  to  the  good  work 
of  "  Uncle  Tom."  That  is  something  !  Let 
me  say,  in  passing,  that  you  will  nowhere  find 
an  earlier  or  more  generous  appreciation,  or 
more  flowing  eulogy,  of  these  men  and  their 
labors,  than  in  the  columns  of  the  Liberator. 
No  one,  however  feeble,  has  ever  peeped  or 
muttered,  in  any  quarter,  that  the  vigilant  eye 
of  the  Pioneer  has  not  recognized  him.  He 
has  stretched  out  the  right  hand  of  a  most 
cordial  welcome  the  moment  any  man's  face 
was  turned  Zionward. 

I  do  not  mention  these  things  to  praise  Mr. 
Garrison  ;  I  do  not  stand  here  for  that  purpose. 
You  will  not  deny  —  if  you  do,  I  can  prove  it  — 
that  the  movement  of  the  Abolitionists  con- 
verted these  men.  Their  constituents  were 
converted  by  it.  The  assault  upon  the  right  of 
petition,  upon  the  right  to  print  and  speak  of 
slavery,  the  denial  of  the  right  of  Congress  over 
the  District,  the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  Law,  were  measures  which  the  anti- 
slavery  movement  provoked,  and  the  discussion 
of  which  has  made  all  the  Abolitionists  we  have. 
The  antislavery  cause,  then,  converted  these 
men  ;  it  gave  them  a  constituency  ;  it  gave 


252  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

them  an  opportunity  to  speak,  and  it  gave 
them  a  public  to  listen.  The  antislavery  cause 
gave  them  their  votes,  got  them  their  offices, 
furnished  them  their  facts,  gave  them  their 
audience.  If  you  tell  me  they  cherished  all 
these  principles  in  their  own  breasts  before  Mr. 
Garrison  appeared,  I  can  only  say,  if  the  anti- 
slavery  movement  did  not  give  them  their 
ideas,  it  surely  gave  the  courage  to  utter  them. 
In  such  circumstances,  is  it  not  singular  that 
the  name  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  has  never 
been  pronounced  on  the  floor  of  the  United 
States  Congress  linked  with  any  epithet  but 
that  of  contempt !  No  one  of  those  men  who 
owe  their  ideas,  their  station,  their  audience,  to 
him,  have  ever  thought  it  worth  their  while  to 
utter  one  word  in  grateful  recognition  of  the 
power  which  called  them  into  being.  When 
obliged,  by  the  course  of  their  argument,  to 
treat  the  question  historically,  they  can  go 
across  the  water  to  Clarkson  and  Wilberforce 
— yes,  to  a  safe  salt-water  distance.  As  Daniel 
Webster,  when  he  was  talking  to  the  farmers  of 
Western  New  York,  and  wished  to  contrast  slave 
labor  and  free  labor,  did  not  dare  to  compare 
New  York  with  Virginia — sister  States,  under 
the  same  government,  planted  by  the  same 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.          253 

race,  worshipping  at  the  same  altar,  speaking 
the  same  language — identical  in  all  respects, 
save  that  one  in  which  he  wished  to  seek  the 
contrast ;  but  no  ;  he  compared  it  with  Cuba — 
the  contrast  was  so  close !  Catholic — Protes- 
tant ;  Spanish — Saxon  ;  despotism — municipal 
institutions ;  readers  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  of 
Shakespeare  ;  mutterers  of  the  Mass — children 
of  the  Bible  !  But  Virginia  is  too  near  home  ! 
So  is  Garrison  !  One  would  have  thought  there 
was  something  in  the  human  breast  which 
would  sometimes  break  through  policy.  These 
noble-hearted  men  whom  I  have  named  must 
surely  have  found  quite  irksome  the  constant 
practice  of  what  Dr.  Gardiner  used  to  call  "  that 
despicable  virtue,  prudence."  "  One  would  have 
thought,  when  they  heard  that  name  spoken 
with  contempt,  their  ready  eloquence  would 
have  leaped  from  its  scabbard  to  avenge  even  a 
word  that  threatened  him  with  insult.  But  it 
never  came — never !  I  do  not  say  I  blame 
them.  Perhaps  they  thought  they  should  serve 
the  cause  better  by  drawing  a  broad  black  line 
between  themselves  and  him.  Perhaps  they 
thought  the  Devil  could  be  cheated :  I  do 

not. 

*          -x-          *          -x-          *          *          *>* 


254  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

Caution  is  not  always  good  policy  in  a  cause 
like  ours.  It  is  said  that,  when  Napoleon  saw 
the  day  going  against  him,  he  used  to  throw 
away  all  the  rules  of  war,  and  trust  himself  to 
the  hot  impetuosity  of  his  soldiers.  The  masses 
are  governed  more  by  impulse  than  conviction, 
and  even  were  it  not  so,  the  convictions  of 
most  men  are  on  our  side,  and  this  will  surely 
appear,  if  we  can  only  pierce  the  crust  of  their 
prejudice  or  indifference.  I  observe  that  our 
Free  Soil  friends  never  stir  their  audience  so 
deeply  as  when  some  individual  leaps  beyond 
the  platform,  and  strikes  upon  the  very  heart  of 
the  people.  Men  listen  to  discussions  of  laws 
and  tactics  with  ominous  patience.  It  is  when 
Mr.  Sumner,  in  Faneuil  Hall,  avows  his  deter- 
mination to  disobey  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and 
cries  out :  "  I  was  a  man  before  I  was  a  Com- 
missioner,"— when  Mr.  Giddings  says  of  the 
fall  of  slavery,  quoting  Adams  :  "  Let  it  come. 
If  it  must  come  in  blood,  yet  I  say  let  it  come  !  " 
— that  their  associates  on  the  platform  are  sure 
they  are  wrecking  the  party, — while  many  a 
heart  beneath  beats  its  first  pulse  of  anti- 
slavery  life. 

These  are  brave  words.  When  I  compare 
them  with  the  general  tone  of  Free  Soil  men  in 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  25$ 

Congress,  I  distrust  the  atmosphere  of  Wash- 
ington and  of  politics.  These  men  move  about, 
Sauls  and  Goliaths  among  us,  taller  by  many  a 
cubit.  There  they  lose  port  and  stature.  Mr. 
Sumner's  speech  in  the  Senate  unsays  no  part 
of  his  Faneuil  Hall  pledge.  But,  though  dis- 
cussing the  same  topic,  no  one  would  gather 
from  any  word  or  argument  that  the  speaker 
ever  took  such  ground  as  he  did  in  Faneuil 
Hall.  It  is  all  through,  the  law,  the  manner  of 
the  surrender,  not  the  surrender  itself,  of  the 
slave,  that  he  objects  to.  As  my  friend  Mr. 
Pillsbury  so  forcibly  says,  so  far  as  any  thing  in 
the  speech  shows,  he  puts  the  slave  behind  the 
jury  trial,  behind  the  habeas  corpus  act,  and  be- 
hind the  new  interpretation  of  the  Constitution, 
and  says  to  the  slave  claimant :  "  You  must  get 
through  all  these  before  you  reach  him  ;  but,  if 
you  can  get  through  all  these,  you  may  have 
him  !  "  It  was  no  tone  like  this  which  made 
the  old  Hall  rock !  Not  if  he  got  through 
twelve  jury  trials,  and  forty  habeas  corpus  acts, 
and  constitutions  built  high  as  yonder  monu- 
ment, would  he  permit  so  much  as  the  shadow 
of  a  little  finger  of  the  slave  claimant  to  touch 
the  slave !  At  least  so  he  was  understood. 
*  #  *  34  jyjn  Mann,  in  his  speech  of  February 


256  WENDELL   PHILLIPS. 

15,  1850,  says:  "  The  States  being  separated,  I 
would  as  soon  return  my  own  brother  or  sister 
into  bondage,  as  I  would  return  a  fugitive  slave. 
Before  God,  and  Christ,  and  all  Christian  men, 
they  are  my  brothers  and  sisters."  What  a 
condition  !  From  the  lips,  too,  of  a  champion 
of  the  Higher  Law!  Whether  the  States  be 
separate  or  united,  neither  my  brother  nor 
any  other  man's  brother  shall,  with  my  consent, 
go  back  to  bondage !  So  speaks  the  heart 
— Mr.  Mann's  version  is  that  of  the  politi- 
cian. 

*  #  *  *  *  *  #" 
This  seems  to  me  a  very  mistaken  strain. 
Whenever  slavery  is  banished  from  our  na- 
tional jurisdiction,  it  will  be  a  momentous  gain, 
a  vast  stride.  But  let  us  not  mistake  the  half- 
way house  for  the  end  of  the  journey.  I  need 
not  say  that  it  matters  not  to  Abolitionists 
under  what  special  law  slavery  exists.  Their 
battle  lasts  while  it  exists  anywhere,  and  I 
doubt  not  Mr.  Sumner  and  Mr.  Giddings  feel 
themselves  enlisted  for  the  whole  war."  I  will 
even  suppose,  what  neither  of  these  gentlemen 
states,  that  their  plan  includes  not  only  that 
slavery  shall  be  abolished  in  the  District  and 
Territories  but  that  the  slave  basis  of  represen- 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  2$/ 

tation  shall  be  struck  from  the  Constitution, 
and  the  slave-surrender  clause  construed  away. 
But  even  then  does  Mr.  Giddings  or  Mr.  Sum- 
ner  really  believe  that  slavery,  existing  in  its 
full  force  in  the  States,  "  will  cease  to  vex  our 
national  politics  ? "  Can  they  point  to  any 
State  where  a  powerful  oligarchy,  possessed  of 
immense  wealth,  has  ever  existed  without  at- 
tempting to  meddle  in  the  government  ?  Even 
now,  does  not  manufacturing,  banking,  and 
commercial  capital  perpetually  vex  our  politics? 
Why  should  not  slave  capital  exert  the  same  in- 
fluence ?  Do  they  imagine  that  a  hundred  thou- 
sand men,  possessed  of  two  thousand  millions 
of  dollars,  which  they  feel  the  spirit  of  the  age 
is  seeking  to  tear  from  their  grasp,  will  not 
eagerly  catch  at  all  the  support  they  can  obtain 
by  getting  the  control  of  the  government?  In 
a  land  where  the  dollar  is  almighty, "  where  the 
sin  of  not  being  rich  is  only  atoned  for  by  the 
effort  to  become  so,"  do  they  doubt  that  such 
an  oligarchy  will  generally  succeed  ?  Besides, 
banking  and  manufacturing  stocks  are  not 
urged  by  despair  to  seek  a  controlling  influence 
in  politics.  They  know  they  are  about  equally 
safe,  whichever  party  rules — that  no  party 
wishes  to  legislate  their  rights  away.  Slave, 

VOL.  II.— 17 


258  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

property  knows  that  its  being  allowed  to  exist 
depends  on  its  having  the  virtual  control  of  the 
government."  Its  constant  presence  in  politics 
is  dictated,  therefore,  by  despair,  as  well  as  by 
the  wish  to  secure  fresh  privileges.  Money, 
however,  is  not  the  only  strength  of  the  slave 
power.  That,  indeed,  were  enough,  in  an  age 
when  capitalists  are  our  feudal  barons.  But, 
though  driven  entirely  from  national  shelter, 
the  slave-holders  would  have  the  strength  of  old 
associations,  and  of  peculiar  laws  in  their  own 
States,  which  give  those  States  wholly  into 
their  hands.  A  weaker  prestige,  fewer  privi- 
leges, and  less  comparative  wealth,  have  ena- 
bled the  British  aristocracy  to  rule  England  for 
two  centuries,  though  the  root  of  their  strength 
was  cut  at  Naseby.  It  takes  ages  for  deeply- 
rooted  institutions  to  die ;  and  driving  slavery 
into  the  States  will  hardly  be  our  Naseby.  *  *  *" 
And  Mr.  Sumner  "  knows  no  better  aim,  un- 
der the  Constitution,  than  to  bring  back  the 
government"  to  where  it  was  in  1789!  Has 
the  voyage  been  so  very  honest  and  prosperous 
a  one,  in  his  opinion,  that  his  only  wish  is  to 
start  again  with  the  same  ship,  the  same  crew, 
and  the  same  sailing  orders  ?  Grant  all  he 
claims  as  to  the  state  of  public  opinion,  th'e  in- 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT. 


tentions  of  leading  men,  and  the  form  of  our 
institutions  at  that  period  ;  still,  with  all  these 
checks  on  wicked  men,  and  helps  to  good  ones, 
here  we  are,  in  1853,  according  to  his  own 
showing,  ruled  by  slavery,  tainted  to  the  core 
with  slavery,  and  binding  the  infamous  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  like  an  honorable  frontlet  on  our 
brows.  The  more  accurate  and  truthful  his 
glowing  picture  of  the  public  virtue  of  1789,  the 
stronger  my  argument.  If  even  all  those  great 
patriots,  and  all  that  enthusiasm  for  justice 
and  liberty,  did  not  avail  to  keep  us  safe  in 
such  a  Union,  what  will?  In  such  desperate 
circumstances,  can  his  statesmanship  devise  no 
better  aim  than  to  try  the  same  experiment 
over  again,  under  precisely  the  same  condi- 
tions ?  What  new  guaranties  does  he  propose 
to  prevent  the  voyage  from  being  again  turned 
into  a  piratical  slave-trading  cruise  ?  None  I 
Have  sixty  years  taught  us  nothing  ?  In  1660, 
the  English  thought,  in  recalling  Charles  II., 
that  the  memory  of  that  scaffold  which  had 
once  darkened  the  windows  of  Whitehall  would 
be  guaranty  enough  for  his  good  behavior. 
But,  spite  of  the  spectre,  Charles  II.  repeated 
Charles  I.,  and  James  outdid  him.  Wiser  by 
this  experience,  when  the  nation  in  1689  got 


260  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

another  chance,  they  trusted  to  no  guaranties, 
but  so  arranged  the  very  elements  of  their 
government  that  William  III.  could  not  repeat 
Charles  I.  Let  us  profit  by  the  lesson.  *  *  * 39 
If  all  I  have  said  to  you  is  untrue,  if  I  have 
exaggerated,  explain  to  me  this  fact.  In  1831, 
Mr.  Garrison  commenced  a  paper  advocating 
the  doctrine  of  immediate  emancipation.  He 
had  against  him  the  thirty  thousand  churches 
and  all  the  clergy  of  the  country, — its  wealth, 
its  commerce,  its  press.  In  1831,  what  was  the 
state  of  things?  There  was  the  most  entire 
ignorance  and  apathy  on  the  slave  question. 
If  men  knew  of  the  existence  of  slavery,  it  was 
only  as  a  part  of  picturesque  Virginia  life.  No 
one  preached,  no  one  talked,  no  one  wrote 
about  it.  No  whisper  of  it  stirred  the  surface 
of  the  political  sea.  The  church  heard  of  it 
occasionally,  when  some  colonization  agent 
asked  funds  to  send  the  blacks  to  Africa.  Old 
school-books  tainted  with  some  antislavery 
selections  had  passed  out  of  use,  and  new  ones 
were  compiled  to  suit  the  times.  Soon  as  any 
dissent  from  the  prevailing  faith  appeared, 
every  one  set  himself  to  crush  it.  The  pulpits 
preached  at  it ;  the  press  denounced  it ;  mobs 
tore  down  houses,  threw  presses  into  the  fire 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  261 

and  the  stream,  and  shot  the  editors  ;  religious 
conventions  tried  to  smother  it ;  parties  arrayed 
themselves  against  it.  Daniel  Webster  boasted 
in  the  Senate,  that  he  had  never  introduced  the 
subject  of  slavery  to  that  body,  and  never  would. 
Mr.  Clay,  in  1839,  makes  a  speech  for  the  Presi- 
dency, in  which  he  says,  that  to  discuss  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  is  moral  treason,  and  that  no 
man  has  a  right  to  introduce  the  subject  into 
Congress.  Mr.  Benton,  in  1844,  laid  down  his 
platform,  and  he  not  only  denies  the  right,  but 
asserts  that  he  never  has  and  never  will  discuss 
the  subject.  Yet  Mr.  Clay,  from  1839  down  to 
his  death,  hardly  made  a  remarkable  speech 
of  any  kind,  except  on  slavery.  Mr.  Webster, 
having  indulged  now  and  then  in  a  little  easy 
rhetoric,  as  at  Niblo's  and  elsewhere,  opens  his 
mouth  in  1840,  generously  contributing  his  aid 
to  both  sides,  and  stops  talking  about  it  only 
when  death  closes  his  lips.  Mr.  Benton's  six 
or  eight  speeches  in  the  United  States  Senate 
have  all  been  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the 
Southwestern  section  of  the  country,  and  form 
the  basis  of  whatever  claim  he  has  to  the  char- 
acter of  a  statesman,  and  he  owes  his  seat  in 
the  next  Congress  somewhat,  perhaps,  to  anti- 
slavery  pretentions !  The  Whig  and  Demo- 


262  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

cratic  parties  pledged  themselves  just  as 
emphatically  against  the  antislavery  discussion, 
— against  agitation  and  free  speech.  These 
men  said :  "  It  sha'n't  be  talked  about ;  it 
won't  be  talked  about !  "  These  are  your 
statesmen  ! — men  who  understand  the  present 
that  is,  and  mould  the  future !  The  man 
who  understands  his  own  time,  and  whose 
genius  moulds  the  future  to  his  views,  he  is  a 
statesman,  is  he  not?  These  men  devoted 
themselves  to  banks,  to  the  tariff,  to  internal 
improvements,  to  constitutional  and  financial 
questions.  They  said  to  slavery  :  "  Back  !  no 
entrance  here !  We  pledge  ourselves  against 
you."  And  then  there  came  up  a  little  printer- 
boy,  who  whipped  them  into  the  traces,  and 
made  them  talk,  like  Hotspur's  starling,  nothing 
BUT  slavery.  He  scattered  all  these  gigantic 
shadows, — tariff,  bank,  constitutional  questions, 
financial  questions  ;  and  slavery,  like  the  colos- 
sal head  in  Walpole's  romance,  came  up  and 
filled  the  whole  political  horizon !  Yet  you 
must  remember  he  is  not  a  statesman !  he 
is  a  "  fanatic."  He  has  no  discipline, — Mr. 
"  Ion  "  says  so ;  he  does  not  understand  the 
"  discipline  that  is  essential  to  victory  "  !  This 
man  did  not  understand  his  own  time,  he  did 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  263 

not  know  what  the  future  was  to  be, — he  was 
not  able  to  shape  it — he  had  no  "  prudence," — 
he  had  no  "  foresight  "  !  Daniel  Webster  says, 
"  I  have  never  introduced  this  subject,  and 
never  will," — and  dies  broken-hearted  because 
he  had  not  been  able  to  talk  enough  about  it ! 
Benton  says,  "  I  will  never  speak  of  slavery," — 
and  lives  to  break  with  his  party  on  this  issue ! 
Clay  says  it  is  "  moral  treason "  to  introduce 
the  subject  into  Congress — and  lives  to  see 
Congress  turned  into  an  antislavery  debating 
society,  to  suit  the  purpose  of  one  "  too  power- 
ful individual."  *  *  *so  Remember  who  it 
was  that  said  in  1831:  "I  am  in  earnest — 
I  will  not  equivocate — I  will  not  excuse — I 
will  not  retreat  a  single  inch — and  I  will  be 
heard!  "  That  speaker  has  lived  twenty-two 
years,  and  the  complaint  of  twenty-three  mil- 
lions of  people  is,  "  Shall  we  never  hear  of  any 
thing  but  slavery?  *  *  *SI  Well,  it  is  all 
HIS  fault  [pointing  to  Mr.  Garrison].  *  *  *  M 
It  seems  to  me  that  such  men  may  point  to  the 
present  aspect  of  the  nation,  to  their  originally 
avowed  purpose,  to  the  pledges  and  efforts  of 
all  your  great  men  against  them,  and  then  let 
you  determine  to  which  side  the  credit  of  sa- 
gacity and  statesmanship  belongs.  Napoleon 


264  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

busied  himself  at  St.  Helena  in  showing  how 
Wellington  ought  to  have  conquered  at  Water- 
loo. The  world  has  never  got  time  to  listen  to 
the  explanation.  Sufficient  for  it  that  the  allies 
entered  Paris. 

It  may  sound  strange  to  some,  this  claim  for 
Mr.  Garrison  of  a  profound  statesmanship.33 
Men  have  heard  him  styled  a  mere  fanatic  so 
long  that  they  are  incompetent  to  judge  him 
fairly.  "  The  phrases  men  are  accustomed," 
says  Goethe, "  to  repeat  incessantly,  end  by  be- 
coming convictions,  and  ossify  the  organs  of  in- 
telligence." I  cannot  accept  you,  therefore,  as 
my  jury.  I  appeal  from  Festus  to  Caesar,  from 
the  prejudice  of  our  streets  to  the  common- 
sense  of  the  world,  and  to  your  children. 

Every  thoughtful  and  unprejudiced  mind 
must  see  that  such  an  evil  as  slavery  will  yield 
only  to  the  most  radical  treatment.  If  you  con- 
sider the  work  we  have  to  do,  you  will  not 
think  us  needlessly  aggressive,  or  that  we  dig 
down  unnecessarily  deep  in  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  our  enterprise.  A  money  power  of  two 
thousand  millions  of  dollars,  as  the  prices  of 
slaves  now  range,  held  by  a  small  body  of  able 
and  desperate  men  ;  that  body  raised  into  a 
political  aristocracy  by  special  constitutional 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  26$ 

provisions  ;  cotton,  the  product  of  slave  labor, 
forming  the  basis  of  our  whole  foreign  com- 
merce, and  the  commercial  class  thus  subsi- 
dized ;  the  press  bought  up,  the  pulpit  reduced 
to  vassalage,  the  heart  of  the  common  people 
chilled  by  a  bitter  prejudice  against  the  black 
race ;  our  leading  men  bribed,  by  ambition, 
either  to  silence  or  open  hostility  ; — in  such  a 
land,  on  what  shall  an  Abolitionist  rely  ?  On  a 
few  cold  prayers,  mere  lip-service,  and  never 
from  the  heart  ?  On  a  church  resolution,  hid- 
den often  in  its  records,  and  meant  only  as  a 
decent  cover  for  servility  in  daily  practice  ?  On 
political  parties,  with  their  superficial  influence 
at  best,  and  seeking  ordinarily  only  to  use  exist- 
ing prejudices  to  the  best  advantage  ?  Slavery 
has  deeper  root  here  than  any  aristocratic  insti- 
tution has  in  Europe ;  and  politics  is  but  the 
common  pulse-beat,  of  which  revolution  is  the 
fever-spasm.  Yet  we  have  seen  European  aris- 
tocracy survive  storms  which  seemed  to  reach 
down  to  the  primal  strata  of  European  life. 
Shall  we,  then,  trust  to  mere  politics,  where 
even  revolution  has  failed  ?  How  shall  the 
stream  rise  above  its  fountain  ?  Where  shall 
our  church  organizations  or  parties  get  strength 
to  attack  their  great  parent  and  moulder,  the 


266  WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

slave  power  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to 
him  that  formed  it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me 
thus?  The  old  jest  of  one  who  tried  to  lift 
himself  in  his  own  basket,  is  but  a  tame  picture 
of  the  man  who  imagines  that,  by  working 
solely  through  existing  sects  and  parties,  he  can 
destroy  slavery.  Mechanics  say  nothing,  but 
an  earthquake  strong  enough  to  move  all  Egypt 
can  bring  down  the  pyramids. 

Experience  has  confirmed  these  views.  The 
Abolitionists  who  have  acted  on  them  have  a 
"  short;  method  "  with  all  unbelievers.  They 
have  but  to  point  to  their  own  success,  in  con- 
trast with  every  other  man's  failure.  To  waken 
the  nation  to  its  real  state,  and  chain  it  to  the 
consideration  of  this  one  duty,  is  half  the  work. 
So  much  we  have  done.  Slavery  has  been  made 
the  question  of  this  generation.  To  startle  the 
South  to  madness,  so  that  every  step  she  takes, 
in  her  blindness,  is  one  step  more  toward  ruin, 
is  much.  This  we  have  done.  Witness  Texas 
and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.84 

To  have  elaborated  for  the  nation  the  only 
plan  of  redemption,  pointed  out  the  only 
exodus  from  this  "  sea  of  troubles,"  is  much. 
This  we  claim  to  have  done  in  our  motto  of  IM- 
MEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL,  EMANCIPATION  ON 


THE  ABOLITION  MOVEMENT.  267 

THE  SOIL.  The  closer  any  statesmanlike  mind 
looks  into  the  question,  the  more  favor  our 
plan  finds  with  it.  The  Christian  asks  fairly  of 
the  infidel,  "  If  this  religion  be  not  from  God, 
how  do  you  explain  its  triumph,  and  the  history 
of  the  first  three  centuries  ?  "  Our  question  is 
similar.  If  our  agitation  has  not  been  wisely 
planned  and  conducted,  explain  for  us  the  his- 
tory of  the  last  twenty  years  !  Experience  is 
a  safe  light  to  walk  by,  and  he  is  not  a  rash 
man  who  expects  success  in  future  from  the 
same  means  which  have  secured  it  in  times 
past. 


CHARLES   SUMNER,* 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS.1 
(BORN  1811,  DIED  1874.) 


ON    THE    REPEAL    OF    THE    FUGITIVE    SLAVE    LAW 

IN     THE    UNITED     STATES     SENATE, 
AUGUST    26,    1852. a 

THURSDAY,  26TH  AUGUST,  1852.— The  Civil 
and  Diplomatic  Appropriation  Bill  being  under 
consideration,  the  following  amendment  was 
moved  by  Mr.  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  on  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  Committee  on  Finance  : 

"  That,  where  the  ministerial  officers  of  the 
United  States  have  or  shall  incur  extraordinary 
expense  in  executing  the  laws  thereof,  the  pay- 
ment of  which  is  not  specifically  provided  for, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  authorized 
to  allow  the  payment  thereof,  under  the  special 
taxation  of  the  District  or  Circuit  Court  of  the 
District  in  which  the  said  services  have  been  or 

*  For  notes  on  Sumner,  see  Appendix,  p.  420. 
268 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLA  VE  LA  W.      269 

shall  be  rendered,  to  be  paid  from  the  appro- 
priation for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the 
Judiciary." 

Mr.  Sumner  seized  the  opportunity  for  which 
he  had  been  waiting,  and  at  once  moved  the 
following  amendment  to  the  amendment : 

"  Provided,  That  no  such  allowance  shall  be 
authorized  for  any  expenses  incurred  in  execut- 
ing the  Act  of  September  18,  1850,  for  the  sur- 
render of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor ;  which 
said  Act  is  hereby  repealed." 

On  this  he  took  the  floor,  and  spoke  as  fol- 
lows : 

MR.  PRESIDENT,— 

Here  is  a  provision  for  extraordinary  ex- 
pense incurred  in  executing  the  laws  of 
the  United  States.  Extraordinary  expenses  ! 
Sir,  beneath  these  specious  words  lurks  the 
very  subject  on  which,  by  a  solemn  vote  of 
this  body,  I  was  refused  a  hearing.  Here 
it  is ;  no  longer  open  to  the  charge  of  being 
an  "  abstraction,"  but  actually  presented  for 
practical  legislation  ;  not  introduced  by  me, 
but  by  the  Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Hunter), 
on  the  recommendation  of  an  important  com- 


2/0  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

mittee  of  the  Senate ;  not  brought  forward 
weeks  ago,  when  there  was  ample  time  for  dis- 
cussion, but  only  at  this  moment,  without  any 
reference  to  the  late  period  of  the  session* 
The  amendment  which  I  offer  proposes  to  re- 
move one  chief  occasion  of  these  extraordin- 
ary expenses.  Beyond  all  controversy  or  cavil 
it  is  strictly  in  order.  And  now,  at  last,  among 
these  final,  crowded  days  of  our  duties  here, 
but  at  this  earliest  opportunity,  I  am  to  be 
heard, — not  as  a  favor,  but  as  a  right.  The 
graceful  usages  of  this  body  may  be  abandoned, 
but  the  established  privileges  of  debate  cannot 
be  abridged.  Parliamentary  courtesy  may  be 
forgotten,  but  parliamentary  law  must  prevail. 
The  subject  is  broadly  before  the  Senate.  By 
the  blessing  of  God  it  shall  be  discussed. 

Sir,  a  severe  lawgiver  of  early  Greece  vainly 
sought  to  secure  permanence  for  his  imperfect 
institutions  by  providing  that  the  citizen  who  at 
any  time  attempted  their  repeal  or  alteration 
should  appear  in  the  public  assembly  with  a 
halter  about  his  neck,  ready  to  be  drawn,  if  his 
proposition  failed.  A  tyrannical  spirit  among 
us,  in  unconscious  imitation  of  this  antique  and 
discarded  barbarism,  seeks  to  surround  an 
offensive  institution  with  similar  safeguard. 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.      2JI 

In  the  existing  distemper  of  the  public  mind, 
and  at  this  present  juncture,  no  man  can  enter 
upon  the  service  which  I  now  undertake,  with- 
out personal  responsibility,  such  as  can  be  sus- 
tained only  by  that  sense  of  duty  which,  under 
God,  is  always  our  best  support.  That  personal 
responsibility  I  accept.  Before  the  Senate  and 
the  country  let  me  be  held  accountable  for  this 
act  and  for  every  word  which  I  utter. 

With  me,  Sir,  there  is  no  alternative.  Pain- 
fully convinced  of  the  unutterable  wrong  and 
woe  of  Slavery, — profoundly  believing,  that, 
according  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers,  it  can  find 
no  place  under  our  National  Government, — 
that  it  is  in  every  respect  sectional,  and  in  no 
respect  national, — that  it  is  always  and  every- 
where creature  and  dependent  of  the  States, 
and  never  anywhere  creature  or  dependent  of 
the  Nation, — and  that  the  Nation  can  never, 
by  legislative  or  other  act,  impart  to  it  any 
support,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States, — with  these  convictions  I  could  not 
allow  this  session  to  reach  its  close  without 
making  or  seizing  an  opportunity  to  declare 
myself  openly  against  the  usurpation,  injustice, 
and  cruelty  of  the  late  intolerable  enactment 


2/2  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves.  Full  well  I 
know,  Sir,  the  difficulties  of  this  discussion, 
arising  from  prejudices  of  opinion  and  from 
adverse  conclusions  strong  and  sincere  as  my 
own.  Full  well  I  know  that  I  am  in  a  small 
minority,  with  few  here  to  whom  I  can  look  for 
sympathy  or  support.  Full  well  I  know  that  I 
must  utter  things  unwelcome  to  many  in  this 
body,  which  I  cannot  do  without  pain.  Full 
well  I  know  that  the  institution  of  Slavery  in 
our  country,  which  I  now  proceed  to  consider, 
is  as  sensitive  as  it  is  powerful,  possessing  a 
power  to  shake  the  whole  land,  with  a  sensitive- 
ness that  shrinks  and  trembles  at  the  touch. 
But  while  these  things  may  properly  prompt  me 
to  caution  and  reserve,  they  cannot  change  my 
duty,  or  my  determination  to  perform  it.  For 
this  I  willingly  forget  myself  and  all  personal 
consequences.  The  favor  and  good-will  of  my 
fellow-citizens,  of  my  brethren  of  the  Senate, 
Sir,  grateful  to  me  as  they  justly  are,  I  am 
ready,  if  required,  to  sacrifice.  Whatever  I  am 
or  may  be  I  freely  offer  to  this  cause. 

Here  allow,  for  one  moment,  a  reference  to 
myself  and  my  position.  Sir,  I  have  never 
been  a  politician.  The  slave  of  principles,  I 
call  no  party  master.  By  sentiment,  education, 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.      273 

i 

and  conviction  a  friend  of  Human  Rights  in 
their  utmost  expansion,  I  have  ever  most  sin- 
cerely embraced  the  Democratic  Idea, — not, 
indeed,  as  represented  or  professed  by  any 
party,  but  according  to  its  real  significance,  as 
transfigured  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  in  the  injunctions  of  Christianity.  In  this 
idea  I  see  no  narrow  advantage  merely  for  in- 
dividuals or  classes,  but  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  and  the  greatest  happiness  of  all  secured 
by  equal  laws.  Amidst  the  vicissitudes  of 
public  affairs  I  shall  hold  fast  always  to  this 
idea,  and  to  any  political  party  which  truly  em- 
braces it. 

Party  does  not  constrain  me  ;  nor  is  my  inde- 
pendence lessened  by  any  relations  to  the  office 
which  gives  me  a  title  to  be  heard  on  this  floor. 
Here,  Sir,  I  speak  proudly.  By  no  effort,  by  no 
desire  of  my  own,  I  find  myself  a  Senator  of  the 
United  States.  Never  before  have  I  held  pub- 
lic office  of  any  kind.  With  the  ample  oppor- 
tunities of  private  life  I  was  content.  No 
tombstone  for  me  could  bear  a  fairer  inscription 
than  this :  "  Here  lies  one  who,  without  the 
honors  or  emoluments  of  public  station,  did 
something  for  his  fellowmen."  From  such 
simple  aspirations  I  was  taken  away  by  the 

VOL.  II.— 1 8 


2/4  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

free  choice  of  my  native  Commonwealth,  and 
placed  at  this  responsible  post  of  duty,  without 
personal  obligation  of  any  kind,  beyond  what 
was  implied  in  my  life  and  published  words. 
The  earnest  friends  by  whose  confidence  I  was 
first  designated  asked  nothing  from  me,  and 
throughout  the  long  conflict  which  ended  in 
my  election  rejoiced  in  the  position  which  I 
most  carefully  guarded.  To  all  my  language 
was  uniform  :  that  I  did  not  desire  to  be  brought 
forward ;  that  I  would  do  nothing  to  promote 
the  result ;  that  I  had  no  pledges  or  promises 
to  offer ;  that  the  office  should  seek  me,  and 
not  I  the  office  ;  and  that  it  should  find  me  in 
all  respects  an  independent  man,  bound  to  no 
party  and  to  no  human  being,  but  only,  accord- 
ing to  my  best  judgment,  to  act  for  the  good 
of  all.  Again,  Sir,  I  speak  with  pride,  both  for 
myself  and  others,  when  I  add  that  these 
avowals  found  a  sympathizing  response.  In 
this  spirit  I  have  come  here,  and  in  this  spirit  I 
shall  speak  to-day. 

Rejoicing  in  my  independence,  and  claiming 
nothing  from  party  ties,  I  throw  myself  upon 
the  candor  and  magnanimity  of  the  Senate.  I 
ask  your  attention  ;  I  trust  not  to  abuse  it. 
I  may  speak  strongly,  for  I  shall  speak  openly 


REPEAL    OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.      2?$ 

and  from  the  strength  of  my  convictions.  I 
may  speak  warmly,  for  I  shall  speak  from  the 
heart.  But  in  no  event  can  I  forget  the  ameni- 
ties which  belong  to  debate,  and  which  especially 
become  this  body.  Slavery  I  must  condemn 
with  my  whole  soul ;  but  here  I  need  only  bor- 
row the  language  of  slaveholders  ;  nor  would  it 
accord  with  my  habits  or  my  sense  of  justice  to 
exhibit  them  as  the  impersonation  of  the  insti- 
tution— Jefferson  calls  it  the  "  enormity  " — 
which  they  cherish.  Of  them  I  do  not  speak ; 
but  without  fear  and  without  favor,  as  without 
impeachment  of  any  person,  I  assail  this  wrong. 
Again,  Sir,  I  may  err ;  but  it  will  be  with  the 
Fathers.  I  plant  myself  on  the  ancient  ways 
of  the  Republic,  with  its  grandest  names,  its 
surest  landmarks,  and  all  its  original  altar-fires 
about  me. 

And  now,  on  the  very  threshold,  I  encounter 
the  objection,  that  there  is  a  final  settlement, 
in  principle  and  substance,  of  the  question  of 
slavery,  and  that  all  discussion  of  it  is  closed. 
Both  the  old  political  parties,  by  formal  resolu- 
tions, in  recent  conventions  at  Baltimore,  have 
united  in  this  declaration.  On  a  subject  which 
for  years  has  agitated  the  public  mind,  which 
yet  palpitates  in  every  heart  and  burns  on  every 


2/6  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

tongue,  which  in  its  immeasurable  importance 
dwarfs  all  other  subjects,  which  by  its  constant 
and  gigantic  presence  throws  a  shadow  across 
these  halls,  which  at  this  very  time  calls  for 
appropriations  to  meet  extraordinary  expenses 
it  has  caused,  they  impose  the  rule  of  silence. 
According  to  them,  Sir,  we  may  speak  of  every- 
thing except  that  alone  which  is  most  present 
in  all  our  minds. 

To  this  combined  effort  I  might  fitly  reply, 
that,  with  flagrant  inconsistency,  it  challenges 
the  very  discussion  it  pretends  to  forbid.  Their 
very  declaration,  on  the  eve  of  an  election,  is, 
of  course,  submitted  to  the  consideration  and 
ratification  of  the  people.  Debate,  inquiry, 
discussion,  are  the  necessary  consequence. 
Silence  becomes  impossible.  Slavery,  which 
you  profess  to  banish  from  public  attention, 
openly  by  your  invitation  enters  every  political 
meeting  and  every  political  convention.  Nay, 
at  this  moment  it  stalks  into  this  Senate, 
crying,  like  the  daughters  of  the  horseleech, 
"Give!  give!  " 

But  no  unanimity  of  politicians  can  uphold 
the  baseless  assumption,  that  a  law,  or  any  con- 
glomerate of  laws,  under  the  name  of  com- 
promise, or  howsoever  called,  is  final.  Nothing 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W. 


can  be  plainer  than  this,  —  that  by  no  parlia- 
mentary device  or  knot  can  any  legislature  tie 
the  hands  of  a  succeeding  legislature,  so  as  to 
prevent  the  full  exercise  of  its  -constitutional 
powers.  Each  legislature,  under  a  just  sense 
of  its  responsibility,  must  judge  for  itself  ;  and 
if  it  think  proper,  it  may  revise,  or  amend,  or 
absolutely  undo  the  work  of  any  predecessor. 
The  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  are  said 
proverbially  to  have  been  unalterable  ;  but  they 
stand  forth  in  history  as  a  single  example  where 
the  true  principles  of  all  law  have  been  so  irra- 
tionally defied. 

To  make  a  law  final,  so  as  not  to  be  reached 
by  Congress,  is,  by  mere  legislation,  to  fasten  a 
new  provision  on  the  Constitution.  Nay,  more  ; 
it  gives  to  the  law  a  character  which  the 
very  Constitution  does  not  possess.  The  wise 
Fathers  did  not  treat  the  country  as  a  Chinese 
foot,  never  to  grow  after  infancy  ;  but,  antici- 
pating progress,  they  declared  expressly  that 
their  great  Act  is  not  final.  According  to  the 
Constitution  itself,  there  is  not  one  of  its  exist- 
ing provisions  —  not  even  that  with  regard  to 
fugitives  from  labor  —  which  may  not  at  all 
times  be  reached  by  amendment,  and  thus  be 
drawn  into  debate.  This  is  rational  and  just. 


278  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

Sir,  nothing  from  man's  hands,  nor  law,  nor  con- 
stitution, can  be  final.     Truth  alone  is  final. 

Inconsistent  and  absurd,  this  effort  is  tyran- 
nical also.  The  responsibility  for  the  recent 
Slave  Act,  and  for  slavery  everywhere  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  necessarily  in- 
volves the  right  to  discuss  them.  To  separate 
these  is  impossible.  Like  the  twenty-fifth  rule 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  against  peti- 
tions on  Slavery, — now  repealed  and  dishon- 
ored,— the  Compromise,  as  explained  and  urged, 
is  a  curtailment  of  the  actual  powers  of  legisla- 
tion, and  a  perpetual  denial  of  the  indisputable 
principle,  that  the  right  to  deliberate  is  coex- 
tensive with  the  responsibility  for  an  act.  To 
sustain  Slavery  it  is  now  proposed  to  trample 
on  free  speech.  In  any  country  this  would 
be  grievous  ;  but  here,  where  the  Constitution 
expressly  provides  against  abridging  freedom 
of  speech,  it  is  a  special  outrage.  In  vain  do 
we  condemn  the  despotisms  of  Europe,  while 
we  borrow  the  rigors  with  which  they  repress 
Liberty,  and  guard  their  own  uncertain  power. 
For  myself,  in  no  factious  spirit,  but  solemnly 
and  in  loyalty  to  the  Constitution,  as  a  Sena- 
tor of  the  United  States,  representing  a  free 
Commonwealth,  I  protest  against  this  wrong. 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLA  VE  LA  W.      2/g 

On  Slavery,  as  on  every  other  subject,  I  claim 
the  right  to  be  heard.  That  right  I  cannot,  I 
will  not  abandon.  "  Give  me  the  liberty  to 
know,  to  utter,  and  to  argue  freely  according 
to  conscience,  above  all  liberties  " ;  these  are 
glowing  words,  flashed  from  the  soul  of  John 
Milton  in  his  struggles  with  English  tyranny. 
With  equal  fervor  they  could  be  echoed  now 
by  every  American  not  already  a  slave. 

But,  Sir,  this  effort  is  impotent  as  tyrannical. 
Convictions  of  the  heart  cannot  be  repressed. 
Utterances  of  conscience  must  be  heard, 
They  break  forth  with  irrepressible  might.  As 
well  attempt  to  check  the  tides  of  ocean, 
the  currents  of  the  Mississippi,  or  the  rushing 
waters  of  Niagara.  The  discussion  of  Slavery 
will  proceed,  wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together, — by  the  fireside,  on  the  highway,  at 
the  public  meeting,  in  the  church.  The  move- 
ment against  Slavery  is  from  the  Everlasting 
Arm.  Even  now  it  is  gathering  its  forces,  soon 
to  be  confessed  everywhere.  It  may  not  be  felt 
yet  in  the  high  places  of  office  and  power,  but 
all  who  can  put  their  ears  humbly  to  the  ground 
will  hear  and  comprehend  its  incessant  and 
advancing  tread. 

The  relations  of  the  National  Government  to 


28O  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

Slavery,  though  plain  and  obvious,  are  con- 
stantly misunderstood.  A  popular  belief  at  this 
moment  makes  Slavery  a  national  institution, 
and  of  course  renders  its  support  a  national 
duty.  The  extravagance  of  this  error  can 
hardly  be  surpassed.  An  institution  which  our 
fathers  most  carefully  omitted  to  name  in  the 
Constitution,  which,  according  to  the  debates 
in  the  Convention,  they  refused  to  cover  with 
any  "  sanction,"  and  which,  at  the  original  or- 
ganization of  the  Government,  was  merely 
sectional,  existing  nowhere  on  the  national  ter- 
ritory, is  now,  above  all  other  things,  blazoned 
as  national.  Its  supporters  pride  themselves 
as  national.  The  old  political  parties,  while 
upholding  it,  claim  to  be  national.  A  Na- 
tional Whig  is  simply  a  Slavery  Whig,  and  a 
National  Democrat  is  simply  a  Slavery  Demo- 
crat, in  contradistinction  to  all  who  regard 
Slavery  as  a  sectional  institution,  within  the 
exclusive  control  of  the  States  and  with  which 
the  nation  has  nothing  to  do. 

As  Slavery  assumes  to  be  national,  so,  by  an 
equally  strange  perversion,  Freedom  is  degraded 
to  be  sectional,  and  all  who  uphold  it,  under 
the  National  Constitution,  are  made  to  share 
this  same  epithet.  Honest  efforts  to  secure  its 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.      28 1 

blessings  everywhere  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
Congress  are  scouted  as  sectional ;  and  this 
cause,  which  the  founders  of  our  National  Gov- 
ernment had  so  much  at  heart,  is  called  Section- 
alism. These  terms,  now  belonging  to  the 
common  places  of  political  speech,  are  adopted 
and  misapplied  by  most  persons  without  reflec- 
tion. But  here  is  the  power  of  Slavery.  Ac- 
cording to  a  curious  tradition  of  the  French 
language,  Louis  XIV.,  the  Grand  Monarch,  by 
an  accidental  error  of  speech,  among  supple 
courtiers,  changed  the  gender  of  a  noun.  But 
slavery  does  more.  It  changes  word  for  word. 
It  teaches  men  to  say  national  instead  of  sec- 
tional, and  sectional  instead  of  national. 

Slavery  national !  Sir,  this  is  a  mistake  and 
absurdity,  fit  to  have  a  place  in  some  new  col- 
lection of  Vulgar  Errors,  by  some  other  Sir 
Thomas  Browne,  with  the  ancient,  but  exploded 
stories,  that  the  toad  has  a  gem  in  its  head,  and 
that  ostriches  digest  iron.  According  to  the 
true  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Fathers,  Slavery,  and  not  Free- 
dom, is  sectional,  while  Freedom,  and  not 
Slavery,  is  national.  On  this  unanswerable 
proposition  I  take  my  stand,  and  here  com- 
mences my  argument. 


282  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

The  subject  presents  itself  under  two  princi- 
pal heads :  First,  the  true  relations  of  the  Na- 
tional Government  to  Slavery,  wherein  it  will  ap- 
pear that  there  is  no  national  fountain  from 
which  Slavery  can  be  derived,  and  no  national 
power,  under  the  Constitution,  by  which  it  can 
be  supported.  Enlightened  by  this  general  sur- 
vey, we  shall  be  prepared  to  consider,  secondly, 
the  true  nature  of  the  provision  for  the  rendition 
of  fugitives  from  service,  and  herein  especially 
the  unconstitutional  and  offensive  legislation 
of  Congress  in  pursuance  thereof. 


I. 


And  now  for  THE  TRUE  RELATIONS  OF  THE 

NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT  TO  SLAVERY.  These 
are  readily  apparent,  if  we  do  not  neglect  well- 
established  principles. 

If  slavery  be  national,  if  there  be  any  power 
in  the  National  Government  to  withhold  this 
institution, — as  in  the  recent  Slave  Act,— it 
must  be  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution.  Nor 
can  it  be  by  mere  inference,  implication,  or 
conjecture.  According  to  the  uniform  admis- 
sion of  courts  and  jurists  in  Europe,  again  and 
again  promulgated  in  our  country,  slavery  can 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LAW.      283 

be  derived  only  from  clear  and  special  recogni- 
tion. "  The  state  of  Slavery,"  said  Lord  Mans- 
field, pronouncing  judgment  in  the  great  case 
of  Sommersett,  "  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  is 
incapable  of  being  introduced  on  any  reasons, 
moral  or  political,  but  only  by  positive  law.  .  .  . 
It  is  so  odious,  that  nothing  can  be  suffered  to 
support  it  but  positive  law." 

*•  *  #  *  *  •*  * » 
Of  course  every  power  to  uphold  slavery 
must  have  an  origin  as  distinct  as  that  of 
Slavery  itself.  Every  presumption  must  be 
as  strong  against  such  a  power  as  against  sla- 
very. A  power  so  peculiar  and  offensive,  so  hos- 
tile to  reason,  so  repugnant  to  the  law  of  Nature 
and  the  inborn  rights  of  man, — which  des- 
poils its  victim  of  the  fruits  of  labor, — which  sub- 
stitutes concubinage  for  marriage, — which 
abrogates  the  relation  of  parent  and  child, — 
which,  by  denial  of  education,  abases  the  intel- 
lect, prevents  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  and 
murders  the  very  soul, — which,  amidst  a  plausi- 
ble physical  comfort,  degrades  man,  created  in 
the  divine  image,  to  the  state  of  a  beast, — such 
a  power,  so  eminent,  so  transcendent,  so  tyran- 
nical, so  unjust,  can  find  no  place  in  any  system 
of  government,  unless  by  virtue  of  positive  sane- 


284  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

tion.  It  can  spring  from  no  doubtful  phrase. 
It  must  be  declared  by  unambiguous  words, 
incapable  of  a  double  sense. 

*         •«•         *         #         •*         *         *  * 

Sir,  such,  briefly,  are  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion, which,  as  applied  to  the  Constitution,  fill 
it  with  the  breath  of  freedom,— 

"  Driving  far  off  each  thing  of  sin  and  guilt." 

To  the  history  and  prevailing  sentiments  of 
the  times  we  may  turn  for  further  assurance. 
In  the  spirit  of  freedom  the  Constitution  was 
formed.  In  this  spirit  our  fathers  always  spoke 
and  acted.  In  this  spirit  the  National  Govern- 
ment was  first  organized  under  Washington. 
And  here  I  recall  a  scene,  in  itself  a  touch- 
stone of  the  period,  and  an  example  for  us, 
upon  which  we  may  look  with  pure  national 
pride,  while  we  learn  anew  the  relations  of  the 
National  Government  to  Slavery. 

The  Revolution  was  accomplished.  The  fee- 
ble Government  of  the  Confederation  passed 
away.  The  Constitution,  slowly  matured  in  a 
National  Convention,  discussed  before  the  peo- 
ple, defended  by  masterly  pens,  was  adopted. 
The  Thirteen  States  stood  forth  a  Nation,  where 
was  unity  without  consolidation,  and  diversity 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.      285 

without  discord.  The  hopes  of  all  were  anxi- 
ously hanging  upon  the  new  order  of  things 
and  the  mighty  procession  of  events.  With 
signal  unanimity  Washington  was  chosen  Pres- 
ident. Leaving  his  home  at  Mount  Vernon, 
he  repaired  to  New  York, — where  the  first  Con- 
gress had  commenced  its  session, — to  assume 
his  place  as  Chief  of  the  Republic.  On  the 
3<Dth  of  April,  1789,  the  organization  of  the 
Government  was  completed  by  his  inaugura- 
tion. Entering  the  Senate  Chamber,  where 
the  two  Houses  were  assembled,  he  was  in- 
formed that  they  awaited  his  readiness  to 
receive  the  oath  of  office.  Without  delay,  at- 
tended by  the  Senators  and  Representatives, 
with  friends  and  men  of  mark  gathered  about 
him,  he  moved  to  the  balcony  in  front  of  the 
edifice.  A  countless  multitude,  thronging  the 
open  ways,  and  eagerly  watching  this  great 
espousal, 

"  With  reverence  look  on  his  majestic  face, 
Proud  to  be  less,  but  of  his  godlike  race." 

The  oath  was  administered  by  the  Chancellor 
of  New  York.  At  such  time,  and  in  such  pres- 
ence, beneath  the  unveiled  heavens,  Washing- 
ton first  took  this  vow  upon  his  lips :  "  I  do 


286  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

solemnly  swear  that  I  will  faithfully  execute 
the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve, 
protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States." 

Over  the  President,  on  this  new  occasion, 
floated  the  national  flag,  with  its  stripes  of  red 
and  white,  its  stars  on  a  field  of  blue.  As  his 
patriot  eye  rested  upon  the  glowing  ensign, 
what  currents  must  have  rushed  swiftly  through 
his  soul.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Revolution, 
in  those  darkest  hours  about  Boston,  after  the 
Battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  before  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  the  thirteen  stripes  had 
been  first  unfurled  by  him,  as  the  emblem  of 
Union  among  the  Colonies  for  the  sake  of 
Freedom.  By  him,  at  that  time,  they  had 
been  named  the  Union  Flag.  Trial,  struggle, 
and  war  were  now  ended,  and  the  Union,  which 
they  first  heralded,  was  unalterably  established. 
To  every  beholder  these  memories,  must  have 
been  full  of  pride  and  consolation.  But,  look- 
ing back  upon  the  scene,  there  is  one  cir- 
cumstance which,  more  than  all  its  other  asso- 
ciations, fills  the  soul, — more  even  than  the 
suggestions  of  Union,  which  I  prize  so  much. 
AT  THIS  MOMENT,  WHEN  WASHINGTON  TOOK 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.      287 

HIS  FIRST  OATH  TO  SUPPORT  THE  CONSTITU- 
TION OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  THE  NATIONAL 
ENSIGN,  NOWHERE  WITHIN  THE  NATIONAL 
TERRITORY,  COVERED  A  SINGLE  SLAVE.  Then, 
indeed,  was  Slavery  Sectional,  and  Freedom 
National. 

On  the  sea  an  execrable  piracy,  the  trade  in 
slaves,  to  the  national  scandal,  was  still  tole- 
rated under  the  national  flag.  In  the  States, 
as  a  sectional  institution,  beneath  the  shelter 
of  local  laws,  Slavery  unhappily  found  a  home. 
But  in  the  only  terrritories  at  this  time  belong- 
ing to  the  nation,  the  broad  region  of  the 
Northwest,  it  was  already  made  impossible,  by 
the  Ordinance  of  Freedom,  even  before  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  The  District  of 
Columbia,  with  its  Fatal  Dowry,  was  not  yet 
acquired. 

The  government  thus  organized  was  Anti- 
slavery  in  character.  Washington  was  a  slave- 
holder, but  it  would  be  unjust  to  his  memory 
not  to  say  that  he  was  an  Abolitionist  also. 
His  opinions  do  not  admit  of  question. 
*  *  •*  *  #  #•  *  * 

By  the  side  of  Washington,  as,  standing  be- 
neath the  national  flag,  he  swore  to  support 
the  Constitution,  were  illustrious  men,  whose 


288  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

lives  and  recorded  words  now  rise  in  judgment. 
There  was  John  Adams,  the  Vice-President, 
great  vindicator  and  final  negotiator  of  our 
national  independence,  whose  soul,  flaming 
with  Freedom,  broke  forth  in  the  early  declara- 
tion, that  "  consenting  to  Slavery  is  a  sacrile- 
gious breach  of  trust,"  and  whose  immitigable 
hostility  to  this  wrong  is  immortal  in  his  de- 
scendants. There  was  also  a  companion  in 
arms  and  attached  friend,  of  beautiful  genius, 
the  yet  youthful  and  "  incomparable  "  Hamil- 
ton,— fit  companion  in  early  glories  and  fame 
with  that  darling  of  English  history,  Sir  Philip 
Sidney,  to  whom  the  latter  epithet  has  been 
reserved, — who,  as  member  of  the  Abolition 
Society  of  New  York,  had  recently  united  in  a 
solemn  petition  for  those  who,  though  "free 
by  the  laws  of  God,  are  held  in  Slavery  by  the 
laws  of  this  State"  There,  too,  was  a  noble 
spirit,  of  spotless  virtue,  the  ornament  of  human 
nature,  who,  like  the  sun,  ever  held  an  unerring 
course, — John  Jay.  Filling  the  important  post 
of  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs  under  the  Con- 
federation, he  found  time  to  organize  the  "  Soci- 
ety for  Promoting  the  Manumission  of  Slaves  " 
in  New  York,  and  to  act  as  its  President,  until, 
by  the  nomination  of  Washington,  he  became 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLA  VE  LA  W.      289 

Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States.  In  his 
sight  Slavery  was  an  "  iniquity,"  "  a  sin  of  crim- 
son dye,"  against  which  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
should  testify,  and  which  the  Government 
should  seek  in  every  way  to  abolish.  "  Till 
America  comes  into  this  measure,"  he  wrote, 
"  her  prayers  to  Heaven  for  liberty  will  be  im- 
pious. This  is  a  strong  expression,  but  it  is 
just.  Were  I  in  your  legislature,  I  would  pre- 
pare a  bill  for  the  purpose  with  great  care,  and 
I  would  never  cease  moving  it  till  it  became  a 
law  or  I  ceased  to  be  a  member."  Such  words 
as  these,  fitly  coming  from  our  leaders,  belong 
to  the  true  glories  of  the  country  : — 

"  While  we  such  precedents  can  boast  at  home, 
Keep  thy  Fabricius  and  thy  Cato,  Rome  !  " 

They  stood  not  alone.  The  convictions  and 
earnest  aspirations  of  the  country  were  with 
them.  At  the  North  these  were  broad  and 
general.  At  the  South  they  found  fervid  utter- 
ance from  slaveholders.  By  early  and  pre- 
cocious efforts  for  "  total  emancipation,"  the 
author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
placed  himself  foremost  among  the  Abolition- 
ists of  the  land.  In  language  now  familiar  to 
all,  and  which  can  never  die,  he  perpetually  de- 

VOL.  II.— IQ 


2QO  CHARLES  SUM  NEK. 

nounced  Slavery.  He  exposed  its  pernicious 
influence  upon  master  as  well  as  slave,  declared 
that  the  love  of  justice  and  the  love  of  country 
pleaded  equally  for  the  slave,  and  that  "  the 
abolition  of  domestic  slavery  was  the  greatest 
object  of  desire."  He  believed  that  "the  sacred 
side  was  gaining  daily  recruits,"  and  confidently 
looked  to  the  young  for  the  accomplishment  of 
this  good  work.  In  fitful  sympathy  with  Jef- 
ferson was  another  honored  son  of  Virginia, 
the  Orator  of  Liberty,  Patrick  Henry,  who, 
while  confessing  that  he  was  a  master  of  slaves, 
said  :  "  I  will  not,  I  cannot  justify  it.  However 
culpable  my  conduct,  I  will  so  far  pay  my 
devoir  to  virtue  as  to  own  the  excellence  and 
rectitude  of  her  precepts,  and  lament  my  want 
of  conformity  to  them."  At  this  very  period, 
in  the  Legislature  of  Maryland,  on  a  bill  for 
the  relief  of  oppressed  slaves,  a  young  man, 
afterwards  by  consummate  learning  and  forensic 
powers  acknowledged  head  of  the  American 
bar,  William  Pinkney,  in  a  speech  of  earnest, 
truthful  eloquence, — better  for  his  memory 
than  even  his  professional  fame, — branded 
Slavery  as  "  iniquitous  and  most  dishonorable," 
"  founded  in  a  disgraceful  traffic,"  "  its  continu- 
ance as  shameful  as  its  origin,"  and  he  openly 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.      2gi 

declared,  that  "  by  the  eternal  principles  of 
natural  justice,  no  master  in  the  State  has  a 
right  to  hold  his  slave  in  bondage  for  a  single 
hour." 

*  *  #  *  #  *  *« 
At  the  risk  of  repetition,  but  for  the  sake  of 
clearness,  review  now  this  argument,  and  gather 
it  together.  Considering  that  Slavery  is  of  such 
an  offensive  character  that  it  can  find  sanction 
only  in  "  positive  law,"  and  that  ifhas  no  such 
"  positive  "  sanction  in  the  Constitution, — that 
the  Constitution,  according  to  its  preamble, 
was  ordained  to  "  establish  justice  "  and  "  se- 
cure the  blessings  of  liberty," — that,  in  the 
Convention  which  framed  it,  and  also  elsewhere 
at  the  time,  it  was  declared  not  to  sanction 
slavery, — that,  according  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  the  Address  of  the  Conti- 
nental Congress,  the  nation  was  dedicated  to 
"  liberty,"  and  the  "  rights  of  human  nature," — 
that,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  com- 
mon law,  the  Constitution  must  be  interpreted 
openly,  actively,  and  perpetually  for  freedom, — 
that,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  it  acts  upon  slaves,  not  as  property,  but 
as  PERSONS, — that,  at  the  first  organization  of 
the  national  Government  under  Washington, 


2Q2  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

Slavery  had  no  national  favor,  existed  nowhere 
on  the  national  territory,  beneath  the  national 
flag,  but  was  openly  condemned  by  Nation, 
Church,  Colleges,  and  Literature  of  the  time, — 
and,  finally,  that,  according  to  an  amendment 
of  the  Constitution,  the  National  Government 
can  exercise  only  powers  delegated  to  it,  among 
which  is  none  to  support  Slavery, — considering 
these  things,  Sir,  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  the 
single  conclusion,  that  Slavery  is  in  no  respect  a 
national  institution,  and  that  the  Constitution 
nowhere  upholds  property  in  man. 

There  is  one  other  special  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  which  I  have  reserved  to  this 
stage,  not  so  much  from  its  superior  impor- 
tance, but  because  it  fitly  stands  by  itself. 
This  alone,  if  practically  applied,  would  carry 
Freedom  to  all  within  its  influence.  It  is  an 
amendment  proposed  by  the  First  Congress, 
as  follows: 

"  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of law, ," 

Under  this  great  segis  the  liberty  of  every  per- 
son within  the  national  jurisdiction  is  unequivo- 
cally placed.  I  say  every  person.  Of  this 
there  can  be  no  question.  The  word  "  person  " 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLA  VE  LA  W.      293 

in  the  Constitution  embraces  every  human  be- 
ing within  its  sphere,  whether  Caucasian,  In- 
dian, or  African,  from  the  president  to  the 
slave.  Show  me  a  person  within  the  national 
jurisdiction,  and  I  confidently  claim  for  him 
this  protection,  no  matter  what  his  condition 
or  race  or  color.  The  natural  meaning  of  the 
clause  is  clear,  but  a  single  fact  of  its  history 
places  it  in  the  broad  light  of  noon.  As  origi- 
nally recommended  by  Virginia,  North  Caro- 
lina, and  Rhode  Island,  it  was  restricted  to  the 
freeman.  Its  language  was,  "  No  freeman 
ought  to  be  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty,  or 
property,  but  by  the  law  of  the  land."  In  re- 
jecting this  limitation,  the  authors  of  the 
amendment  revealed  their  purpose,  that  no 
person,  under  the  National  Government,  of 
whatever  character,  should  be  deprived  of  lib- 
erty without  due  process  of  law, — that  is,  with- 
out due  presentment,  indictment,  or  other 
judicial  proceeding.  But  this  amendment  is 
nothing  less  than  an  express  guaranty  of  Per- 
sonal Liberty,  and  an  express  prohibition  of 
its  invasion  anywhere,  at  least  within  the  na- 
tional jurisdiction. 

Sir,  apply  these  principles,  and  Slavery  will 
again  be  as  when  Washington  took  his  first 


2Q4  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

oath  as  President.  The  Union  Flag  of  the 
Republic  will  become  once  more  the  flag  of 
Freedom,  and  at  all  points  within  the  national 
jurisdiction  will  refuse  to  cover  a  slave.  Be- 
neath its  beneficent  folds,  wherever  it  is  car- 
ried, on  land  or  sea,  slavery  will  disappear,  like 
darkness  under  the  arrows  of  the  ascending 
sun, — like  the  Spirit  of  Evil  before  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord. 

In  all  national  territories  Slavery  will  be 
impossible. 

On  the  high  seas,  under  the  national  flag, 
Slavery  will  be  impossible. 

In  the  District  of  Columbia  Slavery  will  in- 
stantly cease. 

Inspired  by  these  principles,  Congress  can 
give  no  sanction  to  Slavery  by  the  admission  of 
new  slave  States. 

Nowhere  under  the  Constitution  can  the 
Nation,  by  legislation  or  otherwise,  support 
Slavery,  hunt  slaves,  or  hold  property  in  man. 

Such,  sir,  are  my  sincere  convictions.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Constitution,  as  I  understand  it, 
in  the  light  of  the  past  and  of  its  true  princi- 
ples, there  is  no  other  conclusion  which  is 
rational  or  tenable,  which  does  not  defy  authori- 
tative rules  of  interpretation,  does  not  falsify 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.      2$$ 

indisputable  facts  of  history,  does  not  affront 
the  public  opinion  in  which  it  had  its  birth, 
and  does  not  dishonor  the  memory  of  the 
fathers.  And  yet  politicians  of  the  hour 
undertake  to  place  these  convictions  under 
formal  ban.  The  generous  sentiments  which 
filled  the  early  patriots,  and  impressed  upon 
the  government  they  founded,  as  upon  the 
coin  they  circulated,  the  image  and  superscrip- 
tion of  LIBERTY,  have  lost  their  power.  The 
slave-masters,  few  in  number,  amounting  to 
not  more  than  three  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand, according  to  the  recent  census,  have  suc- 
ceeded in  dictating  the  policy  of  the  National 
Government,  and  have  written  SLAVERY  on 
its  front.  The  change,  which  began  in  the  de- 
sire for  wealth,  was  aggravated  by  the  desire 
for  political  predominance.  Through  Slavery 
the  cotton  crop  increased  with  its  enriching 
gains ;  through  Slavery  States  became  part  of 
the  slave  power.  And  now  an  arrogant  and 
unrelenting  ostracism  is  applied,  not  only  to 
all  who  express  themselves  against  Slavery,  but 
to  every  man  unwilling  to  be  its  menial.  A 
novel  test  for  office  is  introduced,  which  would 
have  excluded  all  the  fathers  of  the  Republic, 
— even  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  Franklin! 


296  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

Yes,  Sir!  Startling  it  may  be,  but  indispu- 
table. Could  these  revered  demigods  of  his- 
tory once  again  descend  upon  earth  and  mingle 
in  our  affairs,  not  one  of  them  could  receive  a 
nomination  from  the  National  Convention  of 
either  of  the  two  old  political  parties !  Out  of 
the  convictions  of  their  hearts  and  the  utter- 
ances of  their  lips  against  Slavery  they  would 
be  condemned. 

This  single  fact  reveals  the  extent  to  which 
the  National  Government  has  departed  from 
its  true  course  and  its  great  examples.  For 
myself,  I  know  no  better  aim  under  the  Con- 
stitution than  to  bring  the  Government  back 
to  the  precise  position  on  this  question  it  occu- 
pied on  the  auspicious  morning  of  its  first  or- 
ganization by  Washington, — 

"  Nunc  retrorsum 
Vela  dare,  atque  iterate  cursus 
relictos," 

that  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers  may  again 
prevail  with  our  rulers,  and  the  National  Flag 
may  nowhere  shelter  Slavery. 

To  such  as  count  this  aspiration  unreason- 
able let  me  commend  a  renowned  and  life-giv- 
ing precedent  of  English  history.  As  early  as 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLA  VE  LA  W.      297 

the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  a  courtier  boasted 
that  the  air  of  England  was  too  pure  for  a  slave 
to  breathe,  and  the  Common  Law  was  said  to 
forbid  Slavery.  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this 
vaunt,  kindred  to  that  of  our  fathers,  and  so 
truly  honorable,  slaves  were  introduced  from 
the  West  Indies.  The  custom  of  Slavery 
gradually  prevailed.  Its  positive  legality  was 
affirmed,  in  professional  opinions,  by  two  emi- 
nent lawyers,  Talbot  and  Yorke,  each  after- 
wards Lord  Chancellor.  It  was  also  affirmed 
on  the  bench  by  the  latter  as  Lord  Hardwicke. 
England  was  already  a  Slave  State.  The  fol- 
lowing advertisement,  copied  from  a  London 
newspaper,  The  Public  Advertiser,  si  November 
22,  1769,  shows  that  the  journals  there  were 
disfigured  as  some  of  ours,  even  in  the  District 
of  Columbia. 

"  To  be  sold,  a  black  girl,  the  property  of  J. 
B.,  eleven  years  of  age,  who  is  extremely 
handy,  works  at  her  needle  tolerably,  and 
speaks  English  perfectly  well ;  is  of  an  excel- 
lent temper  and  willing  disposition.  Inquire  of 
her  owner  at  the  Angel  Inn,  behind  St.  Clem- 
ent's Church,  in  the  Strand." 

At  last,  in  1772,  only  three  years  after  this 
advertisement,  the  single  question  of  the  legal- 


298  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

ity  of  Slavery  was  presented  to  Lord  Mans- 
field, on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  A  poor 
negro,  named  Sommersett,  brought  to  England 
as  a  slave,  became  ill,  and,  with  an  inhumanity 
disgraceful  even  to  Slavery,  was  turned  adrift 
upon  the  world.  Through  the  charity  of  an 
estimable  man,  the  eminent  Abolitionist,  Gran- 
ville  Sharp,  he  was  restored  to  health,  when 
his  unfeeling  and  avaricious  master  again 
claimed  him  as  bondman.  The  claim  was  re- 
pelled. After  elaborate  and  protracted  dis- 
cussion in  Westminster  Hall,  marked  by  rarest 
learning  and  ability,  Lord  Mansfield,  with  dis- 
creditable reluctance,  sullying  his  great  judicial 
name,  but  in  trembling  obedience  to  the  genius 
of  the  British  Constitution,  pronounced  a  de- 
cree which  made  the  early  boast  a  practical 
verity,  and  rendered  Slavery  forever  impossible 
in  England.  More  than  fourteen  thousand 
persons,  at  that  time  held  as  slaves,  and  breath- 
ing English  air, — four  times  as  many  as  are 
now  found  in  this  national  metropolis, — stepped 
forth  in  the  happiness  and  dignity  of  free  men. 
With  this  guiding  example  I  cannot  despair. 
The  time  will  yet  come  when  the  boast  of  our 
fathers  will  be  made  a  practical  verity  also,  and 
Court  or  Congress,  in  the  spirit  of  this  British 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.      299 

judgment,  will  proudly  declare  that  nowhere 
under  the  Constitution  can  man  hold  property 
in  man.  For  the  Republic  such  a  decree  will 
be  the  way  of  peace  and  safety.  As  Slavery  is 
banished  from  the  national  jurisdiction,  it  will 
cease  to  vex  our  national  politics.  It  may  lin- 
ger in  the  States  as  a  local  institution  ;  but  it 
will  no  longer  engender  national  animosities, 
when  it  no  longer  demands  national  support. 


II. 


From  this  general  review  of  the  relations  of 
the  National  Government  to  Slavery,  I  pass  to 
the  consideration  of  THE  TRUE  NATURE  OF 
THE  PROVISION  FOR  THE  RENDITION  OF  FUGI- 
TIVES FROM  SERVICE,  embracing  an  examina- 
tion of  this  provision  in  the  Constitution,  and 
especially  of  the  recent  Act  of  Congress  in 
pursuance  thereof.  As  I  begin  this  discussion, 
let  me  bespeak  anew  your  candor.  Not  in  pre- 
judice, but  in  the  light  of  history  and  of  reason, 
we  must  consider  this  subject.  The  way  will 
then  be  easy  and  the  conclusion  certain. 

Much  error  arises  from  the  exaggerated  im- 
portance now  attached  to  this  provision,  and 
from  assumptions  with  regard  to  its  origin  and 


3OO  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

primitive  character.  It  is  often  asserted  that 
it  was  suggested  by  some  special  difficulty, 
which  had  become  practically  and  extensively 
felt,  anterior  to  the  Constitution.  But  this  is 
one  of  the  myths  or  fables  with  which  the  sup- 
porters of  Slavery  have  surrounded  their  false 
god.  In  the  articles  of  Confederation,  while 
provision  is  made  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive 
criminals,  nothing  is  said  of  fugitive  slaves  or 
servants ;  and  there  is  no  evidence  in  any 
quarter,  until  after  the  National  Convention, 
of  hardship  or  solicitude  on  this  account.  No 
previous  voice  was  heard  to  express  desire 
for  any  provision  on  the  subject.  The  story  to 
the  contrary  is  a  modern  fiction. 

I  put  aside,  as  equally  fabulous,  the  common 
saying,  that  this  provision  was  one  of  the 
original  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and 
an  essential  condition  of  Union.  Though  sanc- 
tioned by  eminent  judicial  opinions,  it  will  be 
found  that  this  statement  is  hastily  made, 
without  any  support  in  the  records  of  the  Con- 
vention, the  only  authentic  evidence  of  the 
compromises ;  nor  will  it  be  easy  to  find  any 
authority  for  it  in  any  contemporary  document, 
speech,  published  letter,  or  pamphlet  of  any 
kind.  It  is  true  that  there  were  compromises 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     3OI 

at  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  which 
were  the  subject  of  anxious  debate ;  but  this 
was  not  one  of  them. 

There  was  a  compromise  between  the  small 
and  large  States,  by  which  equality  was  secured 
to  all  the  States  in  the  Senate. 

There  was  another  compromise  finally  carried, 
under  threats  from  the  South,  on  the  motion  of 
a  New  England  member,  by  which  the  Slave 
States  are  allowed  Representatives  according 
to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons  and 
"three  fifths  of  all  other  persons,"  thus  secur- 
ing political  power  on  account  of  their  slaves, 
in  consideration  that  direct  taxes  should  be  ap- 
portioned in  the  same  way.  Direct  taxes  have 
been  imposed  at  only  four  brief  intervals.  The 
political  power  has  been  constant,  and  at  this 
moment  sends  twenty-one  members  to  the 
other  House. 

There  was  a  third  compromise,  not  to  be 
mentioned  without  shame.  It  was  that  hateful 
bargain  by  which  Congress  was  restrained  until 
1808  from  the  prohibition  of  the  foreign  Slave- 
trade,  thus  securing,  down  to  that  period,  tolera- 
tion for  crime.  This  was  pertinaciously  pressed 
by  the  South,  even  to  the  extent  of  absolute 
restriction  on  Congress.  John  Rutledge  said : 


3O2  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

"  If  the  Convention  thinks  that  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  and  Georgia  will  ever  agree  to 
the  Plan  (the  National  Constitution),  unless 
their  right  to  import  slaves  be  untouched,  the 
expectation  is  vain.  The  people  of  those  States 
will  never  be  such  fools  as  to  give  up  so  im- 
portant an  interest."  Charles  Pinckney  said  : 
"  South  Carolina  can  never  receive  the  Plan, 
if  it  prohibits  the  slave-trade."  Charles  Cotes- 
worth  Pinckney  "  thought  himself  bound  to 
declare  candidly,  that  he  did  not  think  South 
Carolina  would  stop  her  importations  of  slaves 
in  any  short  time."  The  effrontery  of  the 
slave-masters  was  matched  by  the  sordidness 
of  the  Eastern  members,  who  yielded  again. 
Luther  Martin,  the  eminent  member  of  the 
Convention,  in  his  contemporary  address  to  the 
Legislature  of  Maryland,  described  the  compro- 
mise. "  I  found,"  he  said,  "  The  Eastern  States, 
notwithstanding  their  aversion  to  Slavery,  were 
very  willing  to  indulge  the  Southern  States  at 
least  with  a  temporary  liberty  to  prosecute  the 
slave-trade,  provided  the  Southern  States  would 
in  their  turn  gratify  them  by  laying  no  restric- 
tion on  navigation  acts''  The  bargain  was 
struck,  and  at  this  price  the  Southern  States 
gained  the  detestable  indulgence.  At  a  sub- 


REPEAL  OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.     303 

sequent  day  Congress  branded  the  slave-trade 
as  piracy,  and  thus,  by  solemn  legislative  act, 
adjudged  this  compromise  to  be  felonious  and 
wicked. 

Such  are  the  three  chief  original  compromises 
of  the  Constitution  and  essential  conditions  of 
Union.  The  case  of  fugitives  from  service  is 
not  of  these.  During  the  Convention  it  was 
not  in  any  way  associated  with  these.  Nor  is 
there  any  evidence  from  the  records  of  this 
body,  that  the  provision  on  this  subject  was 
regarded  with  any  peculiar  interest.  As  its 
absence  from  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
had  not  been  the  occasion  of  solicitude  or  de- 
sire, anterior  to  the  National  Convention,  so  it 
did  not  enter  into  any  of  the  original  plans  of 
the  Constitution.  It  was  introduced  tardily, 
at  a  late  period  of  the  Convention,  and  adopted 
with  very  little  and  most  casual  discussion.  A 
few  facts  show  how  utterly  unfounded  are  recent 
assumptions. 

The  National  Convention  was  convoked  to 
meet  at  Philadelphia  on  the  second  Monday  in 
May,  1787.  Several  members  appeared  at  this 
time,  but,  a  majority  of  the  States  not  being 
represented,  those  present  adjourned  from  day 
to  day  until  the  25th,  when  the  Convention  was 


304  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

organized  by  the  choice  of  George  Washington 
as  President.  On  the  28th  a  few  brief  rules 
and  orders  were  adopted.  On  the  next  day, 
they  commenced  their  great  work. 

On  the  same  day,  Edmund  Randolph,  of 
slaveholding  Virginia,  laid  before  the  Conven- 
tion a  series  of  fifteen  resolutions,  containing 
his  plan  for  the  establishment  of  a  New  National 
Government.  Here  was  no  allusion  to  fugitives 
slaves. 

Also,  on  the  same  day,  Charles  Pinckney,  of 
slaveholding  South  Carolina,  laid  before  the 
Convention  what  was  called  "A  Draft  of  a 
Federal  Government,  to  be  agreed  upon  be- 
tween the  Free  and  Independent  States  of 
America,"  an  elaborate  paper,  marked  by 
considerable  minuteness  of  detail.  Here  are 
provisions,  borrowed  from  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation, securing  to  the  citizens  of  each 
State  equal  privileges,  in  the  several  States, 
giving  faith  to  the  public  records  of  the  States, 
and  ordaining  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from 
justice.  But  this  draft,  though  from  the  flam- 
ing guardian  of  the  slave  interest,  contained  no 
allusion  to  fugitive  slaves. 

In  the  course  of  the  Convention  other  plans 
were  brought  forward:  on  the  i$th  of  June,  a 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.     305 

series  of  eleven  propositions  by  Mr.  Paterson, 
of  New  Jersey,  "  so  as  to  render  the  Federal 
Constitution  adequate  to  the  exigencies  of  Gov- 
ernment and  the  preservation  of  the  Union  "  ; 
on  the  1 8th  June,  eleven  propositions  by  Mr. 
Hamilton,  of  New  York,  "containing  his  ideas 
of  a  suitable  plan  of  Government  for  the  United 
States"  and  on  the  igth  June,  Mr.  Randolph's 
resolutions,  originally  offered  on  the  2Qth  May, 
"  as  altered,  amended,  and  agreed  to  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House."  On  the  26th 
July,  twenty-three  resolutions,  already  adopted 
on  different  days  in  the  Convention,  were  re- 
ferred to  a  "  Committee  of  Detail,"  for  reduction 
to  the  form  of  a  Constitution.  On  the  6th  Au- 
gust this  Committee  reported  the  finished  draft 
of  a  Constitution.  And  yet  in  all  these  resolu- 
tions, plans,  and  drafts,  seven  in  number,  pro- 
ceeding from  eminent  members  and  from  able 
committees,  no  allusion  is  made  to  fugitive 
slaves.  For  three  months  the  Convention  was 
in  session,  and  not  a  word  uttered  on  this 
subject. 

At  last,  on  the  28th  August,  as  the  Conven- 
tion was  drawing  to  a  close,  on  the  considera- 
tion of  the  article  providing  for  the  privileges 
of  citizens  in  different  States,  we  meet  the  first 


VOL.  II  — 2O 


306  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

reference  to  this  matter,  in  words  worthy  of 
note.  "  General  (Charles  Cotesworth)  Pinckney 
was  not  satisfied  with  it.  He  SEEMED  to  wish 
some  provision  should  be  included  in  favor  of 
property  in  slaves."  But  he  made  no  proposition. 
Unwilling  to  shock  the  Convention,  and  uncer- 
tain in  his  own  mind,  he  only  seemed  to  wish 
such  a  provision.  In  this  vague  expression  of 
a  vague  desire  this  idea  first  appeared.  In  this 
modest,  hesitating  phrase  is  the  germ  of  the 
audacious,  unhesitating  Slave  Act.  Here  is 
the  little  vapor,  which  has  since  swollen,  as  in 
the  Arabian  tale,  to  the  power  and  dimensions 
of  a  giant.  The  next  article  under  discussion 
provided  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from 
justice.  Mr.  Butler  and  Mr.  Charles  Pinckney, 
both  from  South  Carolina,  now  moved  openly 
to  require  "  fugitive  slaves  and  servants  to  be 
delivered  up  like  criminals."  Here  was  no  dis- 
guise. With  Hamlet,  it  was  now  said  in 
spirit,— 

"  Seems,  Madam !     Nay  it  is.     I  know  not 
seems." 

But  the  very  boldness  of  the  effort  drew  atten- 
tion and  opposition.  Mr.  Wilson,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, the  learned  jurist  and  excellent  man,  at 


REPEAL  OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LA  W.     3O/ 

once  objected  :  "  This  would  oblige  the  Exec- 
utive of  the  State  to  do  it  at  the  public  ex- 
pense." Mr.  Sherman,  of  Connecticut,  "  saw 
no  more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and 
surrendering  a  slave  or  servant  than  a  horse." 
Under  the  pressure  of  these  objections,  the 
offensive  proposition  was  withdrawn, — never 
more  to  be  renewed.  The  article  for  the  sur- 
render of  criminals  was  then  unanimously 
adopted.  On  the  next  day,  2Qth  August, 
profiting  by  the  suggestions  already  made,  Mr. 
Butler  moved  a  proposition, — substantially  like 
that  now  found  in  the  Constitution, — for  the 
surrender,  not  of  "  fugitive  slaves,"  as  originally 
proposed,  but  simply  of  "  persons  bound  to 
service  or  labor,"  which,  without  debate  or 
opposition  of  any  kind,  was  unanimously 
adopted.7 

Here,  palpably,  was  no  labor  of  compromise, 
no  adjustment  of  conflicting  interest, — nor 
even  any  expression  of  solicitude.  The  clause 
finally  adopted  was  vague  and  faint  as  the 
original  suggestion.  In  its  natural  import  it  is 
not  applicable  to  slaves.  If  supposed  by  some 
to  be  applicable,  it  is  clear  that  it  was  supposed 
by  others  to  be  inapplicable.  It  is  now  insisted 
that  the  term  "-persons  bound  to  service"  or 


308  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

"  held  to  service"  as  expressed  in  the  final 
revision,  is  the  equivalent  or  synonym  for 
"  slaves"  This  interpretation  is  rebuked  by  an 
incident  to  which  reference  has  been  already 
made,  but  which  will  bear  repetition.  On  the 
1 3th  September — a  little  more  than  a  fortnight 
after  the  clause  was  adopted,  and  when,  if 
deemed  to  be  of  any  significance,  it  could  not 
have  been  forgotten — the  very  word  "  service," 
came  under  debate,  and  received  a  fixed  mean- 
ing. It  was  unanimously  adopted  as  a  substi- 
tute for  "  servitude  "  in  another  part  of  the 
Constitution,  for  the  reason  that  it  expressed 
"  the  obligations  of  free  persons"  while  the 
other  expressed  "  the  condition  of  slaves."  In 
the  face  of  this  authentic  evidence,  reported  by 
Mr.  Madison,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  term 
"  persons  held  to  service  "  can  be  deemed  to 
express  anything  beyond  the  obligations  of 
free  persons"  Thus,  in  the  light  of  calm  in- 
quiry, does  this  exaggerated  clause  lose  its  im- 
portance. 

The  provision,  showing  itself  thus  tardily, 
and  so  slightly  regarded  in  the  National  Con- 
vention, was  neglected  in  much  of  the  contem- 
poraneous discussion  before  the  people.  In  the 
Conventions  of  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina, 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     309 

and  Virginia,  it  was  commended  as  securing  im- 
portant rights,  though  on  this  point  there  was 
difference  of  opinion.  In  the  Virginia  Conven- 
tion, an  eminent  character,  Mr.  George  Mason, 
with  others,  expressly  declared  that  there  was 
"no  security  of  property  coming  within  this 
section."  In  the  other  Conventions  it  was 
disregarded.  Massachusetts,  while  exhibiting 
peculiar  sensitiveness  at  any  responsibility  for 
slavery,  seemed  to  view  it  with  unconcern. 
One  of  her  leading  statesmen,  General  Heath, 
in  the  debates  of  the  State  Convention,  strenu- 
ously asserted,  that,  in  ratifying  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  people  of  Massachusetts  "  would  do 
nothing  to  hold  the  blacks  in  slavery."  "  The 
Federalist,"  in  its  classification  of  the  powers 
of  Congress,  describes  and  groups  a  large 
number  as  "  those  which  provide  for  the 
harmony  and  proper  intercourse  among  the 
States,"  and  therein  speaks  of  the  power  over 
public  records,  standing  next  in  the  Constitu- 
tion to  the  provision  concerning  fugitives  from 
service ;  but  it  fails  to  recognize  the  latter 
among  the  means  of  promoting  "  harmony  and 
proper  intercourse  ;  "  nor  does  its  triumvirate 
of  authors  anywhere  allude  to  the  provision. 
The  indifference  thus  far  attending  this  sub- 


3IO  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

ect  still  continued.  The  earliest  Act  of  Con- 
gress, passed  in  1793,  drew  little  attention.  It 
was  not  suggested  originally  by  any  difficulty 
or  anxiety  touching  fugitives  from  service,  nor 
is  there  any  contemporary  record,  in  debate  or 
otherwise,  showing  that  any  special  importance 
was  attached  to  its  provisions  in  this  regard. 
The  attention  of  Congress  was  directed  to  fugi- 
tives from  justice,  and,  with  little  deliberation, 
it  undertook,  in  the  same  bill,  to  provide  for 
both  cases.  In  this  accidental  manner  was 
legislation  on  this  subject  first  attempted.8 

There  is  no  evidence  that  fugitives  were 
often  seized  under  this  Act.  From  a  compe- 
tent inquirer  we  learn  that  twenty-six  years 
elapsed  before  it  was  successfully  enforced  in 
any  Free  State.  It  is  certain,  that,  in  a  case 
at  Boston,  towards  the  close  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, illustrated  by  Josiah  Quincy  as  counsel, 
the  crowd  about  the  magistrate,  at  the  examin- 
ation, quietly  and  spontaneously  opened  a  way 
for  the  fugitive,  and  thus  the  Act  failed  to  be 
executed.  It  is  also  certain,  that,  in  Vermont, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  a  Judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  on  application 
for  the  surrender  of  an  alleged  slave,  accom- 
panied by  documentary  evidence,  gloriously 


REPEAL    OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     $11 

refused  compliance,  unless  the  master  could  show 
a  Bill  of  Sale  from  the  Almighty.  Even  these 
cases  passed  without  public  comment. 

In  1 80 1  the  subject  was  introduced  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  an  effort  for  an- 
other Act,  which,  on  consideration,  was  re- 
jected. At  a  later  day,  in  1817-18,  though  still 
disregarded  by  the  country,  it  seemed  to  excite 
a  short-lived  interest  in  Congress.  In  the 
House  of  Representatives,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Pindall,  of  Virginia,  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  "  providing 
more  effectually  by  law  for  reclaiming  servants 
and  slaves  escaping  from  one  State  into  an- 
other," and  a  bill  reported  by  them  to  amend 
the  Act  of  1793,  after  consideration  for  several 
days  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  was  passed. 
In  the  Senate,  after  much  attention  and  warm 
debate,  it  passed  with  amendments.  But  on 
return  to  the  House  for  adoption  of  the 
amendments,  it  was  dropped.  This  effort, 
which,  in  the  discussions  of  this  subject,  has 
been  thus  far  unnoticed,  is  chiefly  remarkable 
as  the  earliest  recorded  evidence  of  the  unwar- 
rantable assertion,  now  so  common,  that  this 
provision  was  originally  of  vital  importance  to 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country. 


312  CHARLES   SUMNER. 

At  last,  in  1850,  we  have  another  Act,  passed 
by  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  approved  by 
the  President,  familiarly  known  as  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Bill.  As  I  read  this  statute,  I  am  filled 
with  painful  emotions.  The  masterly  subtlety 
with  which  it  is  drawn  might  challenge  admira- 
tion, if  exerted  for  a  benevolent  purpose  ;  but 
in  an  age  of  sensibility  and  refinement,  a  ma- 
chine of  torture,  however  skilful  and  apt,  can- 
not be  regarded  without  horror.  Sir,  in  the 
name  of  the  Constitution,  which  it  violates,  of 
my  country,  which  it  dishonors,  of  Humanity, 
which  it  degrades,  of  Christianity,  which  it 
offends,  I  arraign  this  enactment,  and  now  hold 
it  up  to  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  and  the 
world.  Again,  I  shrink  from  no  responsibility. 
I  may  seem  to  stand  alone ;  but  all  the  patri- 
ots and  martyrs  of  history,  all  the  Fathers  of 
the  Republic,  are  with  me.  Sir,  there  is  no 
attribute  of  God  which  does  not  take  part 
against  this  Act. 

But  I  am  to  regard  it  now  chiefly  as  an  in- 
fringement of  the  Constitution.  Here  its  out- 
rages, flagrant  as  manifold,  assume  the  deepest 
dye  and  broadest  character  only  when  we  con- 
sider that  by  its  language  it  is  not  restricted  to 
any  special  race  or  class,  to  the  African  or  to 


REPEAL  OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     313 

the  person  with  African  blood,  but  that  any 
inhabitant  of  the  United  States,  of  whatever 
complexion  or  condition,  may  be  its  victim. 
Without  discrimination  of  color  even,  and  in 
violation  of  every  presumption  of  freedom,  the 
Act  surrenders  all  who  may  be  claimed  as 
"  owing  service  or  labor  "  to  the  same  tyran- 
nical proceeding.  If  there  be  any  whose  sym- 
pathies are  not  moved  for  the  slave,  who  do 
not  cherish  the  rights  of  the  humble  African, 
struggling  for  divine  Freedom,  as  warmly  as 
the  rights  of  the  white  man,  let  him  consider 
well  that  the  rights  of  all  are  equally  assailed. 
"  Nephew,"  said  Algernon  Sidney  in  prison, 
on  the  night  before  his  execution,  "  I  value  not 
my  own  life  a  chip ;  but  what  concerns  me  is, 
that  the  law  which  takes  away  my  life  may 
hang  every  one  of  you,  whenever  it  is  thought 
convenient.'* 

Whilst  thus  comprehensive  in  its  provisions, 
and  applicable  to  all,  there  is  no  safeguard  of 
Human  Freedom  which  the  monster  Act  does 
not  set  at  nought. 

It  commits  this  great  question — than  which 
none  is  more  sacred  in  the  law — not  to  a  sol- 
emn trial,  but  to  summary  proceedings. 

It  commits  this  great  question,  not  to  one 


3 14  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

of  the  high  tribunals  of  the  land,  but  to  the 
unaided  judgment  of  a  single  petty  magistrate. 

It  commits  this  great  question  to  a  magis- 
trate appointed,  not  by  the  President  with  the 
consent  of  the  Senate,  but  by  the  Court, — 
holding  office,  not  during  good  behavior,  but 
merely  during  the  will  of  the  Court, — and  re- 
ceiving, not  a  regular  salary,  but  fees  according 
to  each  individual  case. 

It  authorizes  judgment  on  ex parte  evidence, 
by  affidavit,  without  the  sanction  of  cross-ex- 
amination. 

It  denies  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  ever 
known  as  the  palladium  of  the  citizen. 

Contrary  to  the  declared  purposes  of  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution,  it  sends  the  fugi- 
tive back  "  at  the  public  expense." 

Adding  meanness  to  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution, it  bribes  the  Commissioner  by  a  double 
stipend  to  pronounce  against  Freedom.  If  he 
dooms  a  man  to  Slavery,  the  reward  is  ten  dol- 
lars ;  but  saving  him  to  Freedom,  his  dole  is 
five. 

The  Constitution  expressly  secures  the  "  free 
exercise  of  religion  "  ;  but  this  Act  visits  with 
unrelenting  penalties  the  faithful  men  and 
women  who  render  to  the  fugitive  that  coun- 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     315 

tenance,  succor,  and  shelter  which  in  their 
conscience  "  religion "  requires ;  and  thus  is 
practical  religion  directly  assailed.  Plain  com- 
mandments are  broken  ;  and  are  we  not  told  that 
"  Whosoever  shall  break  one  of  these  least  com- 
mandments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  "  ? 

As  it  is  for  the  public  weal  that  there  should 
be  an  end  of  suits,  so  by  the  consent  of  civil- 
ized nations  these  must  be  instituted  within 
fixed  limitations  of  time  ;  but  this  Act,  exalting 
Slavery  above  even  this  practical  principle  of 
universal  justice,  ordains  proceedings  against 
Freedom  without  any  reference  to  the  lapse  of 
time. 

Glancing  only  at  these  points,  and  not  stop- 
ping for  argument,  vindication,  or  illustration, 
I  come  at  once  upon  two  chief  radical  objec- 
tions to  this  Act,  identical  in  principle  with 
those  triumphantly  urged  by  our  fathers  against 
the  British  Stamp  Act ;  first,  that  it  is  a  usur- 
pation by  Congress  of  powers  not  granted  by 
the  Constitution,  and  an  infraction  of  rights 
secured  to  the  States;  and,  secondly,  that  it 
takes  away  Trial  by  Jury  in  a  question  of  Per- 
sonal Liberty  and  a  suit  at  Common  Law. 
Either  of  these  objections,  if  sustained,  strikes 


316  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

at  the  very  root  of  the  Act.  That  it  is  obnox- 
ious to  both  is  beyond  doubt. 

Here,  at  this  stage,  I  encounter  the  difficulty, 
that  these  objections  are  already  foreclosed  by 
legislation  of  Congress  and  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court, — that  as  early  as  1793  Con- 
gress assumed  power  over  this  subject  by  an 
Act  which  failed  to  secure  Trial  by  Jury,  and 
that  the  validity  of  this  Act  under  the  Consti- 
tution has  been  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court. 
On  examination,  this  difficulty  will  disappear. 

The  Act  of  1793  proceeded  from  a  Congress 
that  had  already  recognized  the  United  States 
Bank,  chartered  by  a  previous  Congress,  which, 
though  sanctioned  by  the  Supreme  Court,  has 
been  since  in  high  quarters  pronounced  uncon- 
stitutional. If  it  erred  as  to  the  Bank,  it  may 
have  erred  also  as  to  fugitives  from  service. 
But  the  Act  itself  contains  a  capital  error  on 
this  very  subject,  so  declared  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  pretending  to  vest  a  portion  of  the 
judicial  power  of  the  Nation  in  State  officers. 
This  error  takes  from  the  Act  all  authority  as 
an  interpretation  of  the  Constitution.  I  dis- 
miss it. 

The  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  en- 
titled to  great  consideration,  and  will  not  be 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW.     317 

mentioned  by  me  except  with  respect.  Among 
the  memories  of  my  youth  are  happy  days 
when  I  sat  at  the  feet  of  this  tribunal,  while 
MARSHALL  presided,  with  STORY  by  his  side. 
The  pressure  now  proceeds  from  the  case  of 
Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania  (16  Peters,  539),  where  is 
asserted  the  power  of  Congress.  Without  go- 
ing into  minute  criticism  of  this  judgment,  or 
considering  the  extent  to  which  it  is  extra- 
judicial,  and  therefore  of  no  binding  force, — all 
which  has  been  done  at  the  bar  in  one  State, 
and  by  an  able  court  in  another, — but  conced- 
ing to  it  a  certain  degree  of  weight  as  a  rule  to 
the  judiciary  on  this  particular  point,  still  it 
does  not  touch  the  grave  question  which  springs 
from  the  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury.  This  judg- 
ment was  pronounced  by  Mr.  Justice  Story. 
From  the  interesting  biography  of  the  great 
jurist,  recently  published  by  his  son,  we  learn 
that  the  question  of  Trial  by  Jury  was  not 
considered  as  before  the  Court ;  so  that,  in  the 
estimation  of  the  learned  judge  himself,  it  was 
still  an  open  question.9 

•*         *         *         *         *         *         #  »• 

(i).     First  of  the  power  of  Congress  over  this 
subject. 

The  Constitution  contains  powers  granted  to 


318  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

Congress,  compacts  between  the  States,  and 
prohibitions  addressed  to  the  Nation  and  to  the 
States.  A  compact  or  prohibition  may  be  ac- 
companied by  a  power, — but  not  necessarily, 
for  it  is  essentially  distinct  in  nature.  And 
here  the  single  question  arises,  Whether  the 
Constitution,  by  grant,  general  or  special,  con- 
fers upon  Congress  any  power  to  legislate  on 
the  subject  of  fugitives  from  service. 

*  *  #  #  *  •*  #» 
The  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  wise 
and  careful,  having  a  reason  for  what  they  did, 
and  understanding  the  language  they  employed. 
They  did  not,  after  discussion,  incorporate  into 
their  work  any  superfluous  provision  ;  nor  did 
they  without  design  adopt  the  peculiar  arrange- 
ment in  which  it  appears.  Adding  to  the 
record  compact  an  express  grant  of  power, 
they  testified  not  only  their  desire  for  such 
power  in  Congress,  but  their  conviction  that 
without  such  express  grant  it  would  not  exist. 
But  if  express  grant  was  necessary  in  this  case, 
it  was  equally  necessary  in  all  the  other  cases. 
Expressum  facit  cessare  taciturn.  Especially, 
in  view  of  its  odious  character,  was  it  necessary 
in  the  case  of  fugitives  from  service.  Abstain- 
ing from  any  such  grant,  and  then  grouping 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW.     319 

the  bare  compact  with  other  similar  compacts, 
separate  from  every  grant  of  power,  they  testi- 
fied their  purpose  most  significantly.  Not  only 
do  they  decline  all  addition  to  the  compact  of 
any  such  power,  but,  to  render  misapprehension 
impossible,  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  to 
exclude  any  contrary  conclusion,  they  punctili- 
ously arrange  the  clauses,  on  the  principle  of 
noscitur  a  sociis,  so  as  to  distinguish  all  the 
grants  of  power,  but  especially  to  make  the 
new  grant  of  power,  in  the  case  of  public 
records,  stand  forth  in  the  front  by  itself, 
severed  from  the  naked  compacts  with  which 
it  was  originally  associated. 

Thus  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  show 
that  the  founders  understood  the  necessity  of 
powers  in  certain  cases,  and,  on  consideration, 
jealously  granted  them.  A  closing  example 
will  strengthen  the  argument.  Congress  is  ex- 
pressly empowered  "  to  establish  an  uniform  rule 
of  naturalization,  and  uniform  laws  on  the  sub- 
ject of  bankruptcies,  throughout  the  United 
States."  Without  this  provision  these  two 
subjects  would  have  fallen  within  the  control 
of  the  States,  leaving  the  nation  powerless  to 
establish  a  uniform  rule  thereupon.  Now,  in- 
stead of  the  existing  compact  on  fugitives  from 


320  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

service,  it  would  have  been  easy,  had  any  such 
desire  prevailed,  to  add  this  case  to  the  clause 
on  naturalization  and  bankruptcies,  and  to  em- 
power Congress  To  ESTABLISH  A  UNIFORM 
RULE  FOR  THE  SURRENDER  OF  FUGITIVES 
FROM  SERVICE  THROUGHOUT  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  Then,  of  course,  whenever  Congress 
undertook  to  exercise  the  power,  all  State  con- 
trol of  the  subject  would  be  superseded.  The 
National  Government  would  have  been  consti- 
stuted,  like  Nimrod,  the  mighty  Hunter,  with 
power  to  gather  the  huntsmen,  to  halloo  the 
pack,  and  to  direct  the  chase  of  men,  ranging 
at  will,  without  regard  to  boundaries  or  juris- 
dictions, throughout  all  the  States.  But  no 
person  in  the  Convention,  not  one  of  the  reck- 
less partisans  of  slavery,  was  so  audacious  as 
to  make  this  proposition.  Had  it  been  dis- 
tinctly made,  it  would  have  been  as  distinctly 
denied. 

The  fact  that  the  provision  on  this  subject 
was  adopted  unanimously,  while  showing  the 
little  importance  attached  to  it  in  the  shape  it 
finally  assumed,  testifies  also  that  it  could  not 
have  been  regarded  as  a  source  of  national  power 
for  Slavery.  It  will  be  remembered  that  among 
the  members  of  the  Convention  were  Gouver- 


REPEAL  OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     $21 

neur  Morris,  who  had  said  that  he  "  NEVER 
would  concur  in  upholding  domestic  Slavery," 
— Elbridge  Gerry,  who  thought  we  "  ought  to 
be  careful  NOT  to  give  any  sanction  to  it" — 
Roger  Sherman,  who  "  was  OPPOSED  to  a  tax 
on  slaves  imported,  because  it  implied  they  were 
property" — James  Madison,  who  "thought  it 
WRONG  to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea 
that  there  could  be  property  in  men," — and 
Benjamin  Franklin,  who  likened  American 
slaveholders  to  Algerine  corsairs.  In  the  face 
of  these  unequivocal  judgments,  it  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  these  eminent  citizens  consented 
unanimously  to  any  provision  by  which  the 
National  Government,  the  creature  of  their 
hands,  dedicated  to  freedom,  could  become  the 
most  offensive  agent  of  Slavery. 

Thus  much  for  the  evidence  from  the  history 
of  the  Convention.  But  the  true  principles  of 
our  political  system  are  in  harmony  with  this 
conclusion  of  history ;  and  here  let  me  say  a 
word  of  State  rights. 

It  was  the  purpose  of  our  fathers  to  create  a 
National  Government,  and  to  endow  it  with 
adequate  powers.  They  had  known  the  perils 
of  imbecility,  discord,  and  confusion,  protracted 
through  the  uncertain  days  of  the  Confedera- 


322  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

tion,  and  they  desired  a  government  which 
should  be  a  true  bond  of  union  and  an  efficient 
organ  of  national  interests  at  home  and  abroad. 
But  while  fashioning  this  agency,  they  fully 
recognized  the  governments  of  the  States.  To 
the  nation  were  delegated  high  powers,  essen- 
tial to  the  national  interests,  but  specific  in 
character  and  limited  in  number.  To  the 
States  and  to  the  people  were  reserved  the 
powers,  general  in  character  and  unlimited  in 
number,  not  delegated  to  the  nation  or  pro- 
hibited to  the  States. 

The  integrity  of  our  political  system  depends 
upon  harmony  in  the  operations  of  the  Nation 
and  of  the  States.  While  the  nation  within  its 
wide  orbit  is  supreme,  the  States  move  with 
equal  supremacy  in  their  own.  But,  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  the  supremacy  of  each 
in  its  proper  place  excludes  the  other.  The 
Nation  cannot  exercise  rights  reserved  to  the 
States,  nor  can  the  States  interfere  with  the 
powers  of  the  nation.  Any  such  action  on 
either  side  is  a  usurpation.  These  principles 
were  distinctly  declared  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in 
1798,  in  words  often  adopted  since,  and  which 
must  find  acceptance  from  all  parties. 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     323 

I  have  already  amply  shown  to-day  that 
Slavery  is  in  no  respect  national — that  it  is  not 
within  the  sphere  of  national  activity, — that  it 
has  no  "  positive  "  support  in  the  Constitution, 
— and  that  any  interpretation  inconsistent  with 
this  principle  would  be  abhorrent  to  the  senti- 
ments of  its  founders.  Slavery  is  a  local  insti- 
tution, peculiar  to  the  States,  and  under  the 
guardianship  of  State  rights.  It  is  impossible, 
without  violence  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the 
Constitution,  to  claim  for  Congress  any  power 
to  legislate  either  for  its  abolition  in  the  States 
or  its  support  anywhere.  Non-intervention  is 
the  rule  prescribed  to  the  nation.  Regarding 
the  question  in  its  more  general  aspects  only, 
and  putting  aside,  for  the  moment,  the  perfect 
evidence  from  the  records  of  the  convention,  it 
is  palpable  that  there  is  no  national  fountain 
out  of  which  the  existing  Slave  Act  can  possibly 
spring. 

But  this  Act  is  not  only  an  unwarrantable 
assumption  of  power  by  the  nation,  it  is  also 
an  infraction  of  rights  reserved  to  the  States. 
Everywhere  within  their  borders  the  States  are 
peculiar  guardians  of  personal  liberty.  By  jury 
and  habeas  corpus  to  save  the  citizen  harmless 
against  all  assault  is  among  their  duties  and 


324  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

rights.  To  his  State  the  citizen,  when  oppressed, 
may  appeal ;  nor  should  he  find  that  appeal 
denied.  But  this  Act  despoils  him  of  rights, 
and  despoils  his  State  of  all  power  to  protect 
him.  It  subjects  him  to  the  wretched  chance 
of  false  oaths,  forged  papers,  and  facile  com- 
missioners, and  takes  from  him  every  safeguard. 
Now,  if  the  slaveholder  has  a  right  to  be  secure 
at  home  in  the  enjoyment  of  Slavery,  so  also 
has  the  freeman  of  the  North — and  every  per- 
son there  is  presumed  to  be  a  free  man — an 
equal  right  to  be  secure  at  home  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  freedom.  The  same  principle  of  State 
rights  by  which  Slavery  is  protected  in  the 
slave  States  throws  an  impenetrable  shield 
over  Freedom  in  the  free  States.  And  here, 
let  me  say,  is  the  only  security  for  Slavery  in 
the  slave  States,  as  for  Freedom  in  the  free 
States.  In  the  present  fatal  overthrow  of 
State  rights  you  teach  a  lesson  which  may 
return  to  plague  the  teacher.  Compelling  the 
National  Government  to  stretch  its  Briarean 
arms  into  the  free  States  for  the  sake  of  Slavery, 
you  show  openly  how  it  may  stretch  these  same 
hundred  giant  arms  into  the  slave  States  for 
the  sake  of  Freedom.  This  lesson  was  not 
taught  by  our  fathers. 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLA  VE  LAW,     325 

Here  I  end  this  branch  of  the  question. 
The  true  principles  of  our  political  system,  the 
history  of  the  National  Convention,  the  natural 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  all  teach 
that  this  Act  is  a  usurpation  by  Congress  of 
powers  that  do  not  belong  to  it,  and  an  infrac- 
tion of  rights  secured  to  the  States.  It  is  a 
sword,  whose  handle  is  at  the  National  Capital, 
and  whose  point  is  everywhere  in  the  States. 
A  weapon  so  terrible  to  personal  liberty  the 
nation  has  no  power  to  grasp. 

(2).  And  now  of  the  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury. 

Admitting,  for  the  moment,  that  Congress  is 
intrusted  with  power  over  this  subject,  which 
truth  disowns,  still  the  Act  is  again  radically  un- 
constitutional from  its  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury 
in  a  question  of  personal  liberty  and  a  suit  of 
common  law.  Since  on  the  one  side  there  is  a 
claim  of  property,  and  on  the  other  of  liberty, 
both  property  and  liberty  are  involved  in  the 
issue.  To  this  claim  on  either  side  is  attached 
Trial  by  Jury. 

To  me,  Sir,  regarding  this  matter  in  the  light 
of  the  Common  Law  and  in  the  blaze  of  free  in- 
stitutions, it  has  always  seemed  impossible  to 
arrive  at  any  other  conclusion.  If  the  language 
of  the  Constitution  were  open  to  doubt,  which 


326  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

it  is  not,  still  all  the  presumptions  of  law,  all 
the  leanings  to  Freedom,  all  the  suggestions  of 
justice,  plead  angel-tongued  for  this  right.  No- 
body doubts  that  Congress,  if  it  legislates  on 
this  matter,  may  allow  a  Trial  by  Jury.  But  if 
it  may,  so  overwhelming  is  the  claim  of  justice, 
it  MUST.  Beyond  this,  however,  the  question 
is  determined  by  the  precise  letter  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Several  expressions  in  the  provision  for  the 
surrender  of  fugitives  from  service  show  the 
essential  character  of  the  proceedings.  In  the 
first  place,  the  person  must  be,  not  merely 
charged,  as  in  the  case  of  fugitives  from  justice, 
but  actually  held  to  service  in  the  State  which 
he  escaped.  In  the  second  place,  he  must  "be 
delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due.  These  two 
facts — that  he  was  held  to  service,  and  that  his 
service  was  due  to  his  claimant — are  directly 
placed  in  issue,  and  must  be  proved.  Two 
necessary  incidents  of  the  delivery  may  also  be 
observed.  First,  it  is  made  in  the  State  where 
the  fugitive  is  found ;  and,  secondly,  it  restores 
to  the  claimant  complete  control  over  the  per- 
son of  the  fugitive.  From  these  circumstances 
it  is  evident  that  the  proceedings  cannot  be  re- 


REPEAL    OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW.     Z27 

garded,  in  any  just  sense,  as  preliminary,  or 
ancillary  to  some  future  formal  trial,  but  as 
complete  in  themselves,  final  and  conclusive. 

These  proceedings  determine  on  the  one  side 
the  question  of  property,  and  on  the  other  the 
sacred  question  of  personal  liberty  in  its  most 
transcendent  form, — Liberty  not  merely  for  a 
day  or  a  year,  but  for  life,  and  the  Liberty  of 
generations  that  shall  come  after,  so  long  as 
Slavery  endures.  To  these  questions  the  Con- 
stitution, by  two  specific  provisions,  attaches 
Trial  by  Jury.  One  is  the  familiar  clause,  al- 
ready adduced  :  "  No  person  shall  be  deprived 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process 
of  law" — that  is,  without  due  proceeding  at 
law,  with  Trial  by  Jury.  Not  stopping  to  dwell 
on  this,  I  press  at  once  to  the  other  provision, 
which  is  still  more  express  :  "  In  suits  at  com- 
mon law,  where  the  value  in  controversy  shall 
exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  Trial  by  Jury 
shall  be  preserved."  This  clause,  which  does 
not  appear  in  the  Constitution  as  first  adopted, 
was  suggested  by  the  very  spirit  of  freedom.  At 
the  close  of  the  National  Convention,  Elbridge 
Gerry  refused  to  sign  the  Constitution  because, 
among  other  things,  it  established  "  a  tribunal 
without  juries,  a  star  chamber  as  to  civil  cases." 


328  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

Many  united  in  his  opposition,  and  on  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  First  Congress  this  addi- 
tional safeguard  was  adopted  as  an  amendment. 
#         #         *         •*         *         *         #is 

Opposing  this  Act  as  doubly  unconstitutional 
from  the  want  of  power  in  Congress  and  from 
the  denial  of  trial  by  jury,  I  find  myself  again 
encouraged  by  the  example  of  our  Revolution- 
ary Fathers,  in  a  case  which  is  a  landmark  of 
history.  The  parallel  is  important  and  com- 
plete. In  1765,  the  British  Parliament,  by  a 
notorious  statute,  attempted  to  draw  money 
from  the  colonies  through  a  stamp  tax,  while 
the  determination  of  certain  questions  of  for- 
feiture under  the  statute  was  delegated,  not  to 
the  Courts  of  Common  Law,  but  to  Courts  of  Ad- 
miralty without  a  jury.  The  Stamp  Act,  now 
execrated  by  all  lovers  of  liberty,  had  this  ex- 
tent and  no  more.  Its  passage  was  the  signal 
for  a  general  flame  of  opposition  and  indigna- 
tion throughout  the  colonies.  It  was  denounced 
as  contrary  to  the  British  Constitution,  on  two 
principal  grounds — first,  as  a  usurpation  by 
Parliament  of  powers  not  belonging  to  it,  and 
an  infraction  of  rights  secured  to  the  colonies ; 
and,  secondly,  as  a  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury  in  cer- 
tain cases  of  property. 


REPEAL  OF  fUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     329 

The  public  feeling  was  variously  expressed. 
At  Boston,  on  the  day  the  act  was  to  take 
effect,  the  shops  were  closed,  the  bells  of  the 
churches  tolled,  and  the  flags  of  the  ships  hung 
at  half-mast.  At  Portsmouth,  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, the  bells  were  tolled,  and  the  friends  of 
liberty  were  summoned  to  hold  themselves  in 
readiness  for  her  funeral.  At  New  York,  the 
obnoxious  Act,  headed  "  Folly  of  England  and 
Ruin  of  America,"  was  contemptuously  hawked 
about  the  streets.  Bodies  of  patriots  were  or- 
ganized everywhere  under  the  name  of  "  Sons 
of  Liberty."  The  merchants,  inspired  then  by 
liberty,  resolved  to  import  no  more  goods  from 
England  until  the  repeal  of  the  Act.  The 
orators  also  spoke.  James  Otis  with  fiery 
tongue  appealed  to  Magna  Charta. 

*        *        #        *        *        *        #»« 

Sir,  regarding  the  Stamp  Act  candidly  and 
cautiously,  free  from  animosities  of  the  time,  it 
is  impossible  not  to  see  that,  though  gravely 
unconstitutional,  it  was  at  most  an  infringe- 
ment of  civil  liberty  only,  not  of  personal 
liberty.  There  was  an  unjust  tax  of  a  few 
pence,  with  the  chance  of  amercement  by  a 
single  judge  without  a  jury ;  but  by  no  pro- 
vision of  this  act  was  the  personal  liberty  of 


330  CHARLES   SUMNER. 

any  man  assailed.  No  freeman  could  be  seized 
under  it  as  a  slave.  Such  an  act,  though  justly 
obnoxious  to  every  lover  of  constitutional 
Liberty,  cannot  be  viewed  with  the  feelings  of 
repugnance  enkindled  by  a  statute  which  assails 
the  personal  liberty  of  every  man,  and  under 
which  any  freeman  may  be  seized  as  a  slave. 
Sir,  in  placing  the  Stamp  Act  by  the  side  of 
the  Slave  Act,  I  do  injustice  to  that  emanation 
of  British  tyranny.  Both  infringe  important 
rights :  one,  of  property ;  the  other,  the  vital 
right  of  all,  which  is  to  other  rights  as  soul  to 
body, — the  right  of  a  man  to  himself.  Both  are 
condemned ;  but  their  relative  condemnation 
must  be  measured  by  their  relative  characters. 
As  Freedom  is  more  than  property,  as  Man  is 
above  the  dollar  that  he  owns,  as  heaven,  to 
which  we  all  aspire,  is  higher  than  earth,  where 
every  accumulation  of  wealth  must  ever  remain, 
so  are  the  rights  assailed  by  an  American  Con- 
gress higher  than  those  once  assailed  by  the 
British  Parliament.  And  just  in  this  degree 
must  history  condemn  the  Slave  Act  more  than 
the  Stamp  Act. 

Sir,  I  might  here  stop.     It  is  enough,  in  this 
place,  and  on  this  occasion,  to  show  the  uncon- 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW.     331 

stitutionality  of  this  enactment.  Your  duty 
commences  at  once.  All  legislation  hostile  to 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  land  should  be 
repealed  without  delay.  But  the  argument  is 
not  yet  exhausted.  Even  if  this  Act  could  claim 
any  validity  or  apology  under  the  Constitution, 
which  it  cannot,  it  lacks  that  essential  support  in 
the  Public  Conscience  of  the  States,  where  it  is  to 
be  enforced,  which  is  the  life  of  all  law,  and  with- 
out which  any  law  must  become  a  dead  letter. 
•*  #•  •#  *  *  •*  -x-16 

With  every  attempt  to  administer  the  Slave 
Act,  it  constantly  becomes  more  revolting,  par- 
ticularly in  its  influence  on  the  agents  it  enlists. 
Pitch  cannot  be  touched  without  defilement, 
and  all  who  lend  themselves  to  this  work  seem 
at  once  and  unconsciously  to  lose  the  better 
part  of  man.  The  spirit  of  the  law  passes  into 
them,  as  the  devils  entered  the  swine.  Upstart 
commissioners,  mere  mushrooms  of  courts,  vie 
and  revie  with  each  other.  Now  by  indecent 
speed,  now  by  harshness  of  manner,  now  by 
denial  of  evidence,  now  by  crippling  the  de- 
fense, and  now  by  open,  glaring  wrong  they 
make  the  odious  Act  yet  more  odious.  Clem- 
ency, grace,  and  justice  die  in  its  presence.  All 
this  is  observed  by  the  world.  Not  a  case 


332  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

occurs  which  does  not  harrow  the  souls  of  good 
men,  and  bring  tears  of  sympathy  to  the  eyes, 
and  those  nobler  tears  which  "  patriots  shed 
o'er  dying  laws." 

Sir,  I  shall  speak  frankly.  If  there  be  an  ex- 
ception to  this  feeling,  it  will  be  found  chiefly 
with  a  peculiar  class.  It  is  a  sorry  fact,  that 
the  "  mercantile  interest,"  in  unpardonable 
selfishness,  twice  in  English  history,  frowned 
upon  endeavors  to  suppress  the  atrocity  of 
Algerine  Slavery,  that  it  sought  to  baffle  Wil- 
berforce's  great  effort  for  the  abolition  of  the 
African  slave-trade,  and  that,  by  a  sordid  com- 
promise, at  the  formation  of  our  Constitution, 
it  exempted  the  same  detested,  Heaven-defying 
traffic  from  American  judgment.  And  now 
representatives  of  this  "  interest,"  forgetful  that 
Commerce  is  born  of  Freedom,  join  in  hunting 
the  Slave.  But  the  great  heart  of  the  people 
recoils  from  this  enactment.  It  palpitates  for 
the  fugitive,  and  rejoices  in  his  escape.  Sir,  I 
am  telling  you  facts.  The  literature  of  the  age 
is  all  on  his  side.  Songs,  more  potent  than 
laws,  are  for  him.  Poets,  with  voices  of  mel- 
ody, sing  for  Freedom.  Who  could  tune  for 
Slavery  ?  They  who  make  the  permanent 
opinion  of  the  country,  who  mould  our  youth, 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     333 

whose  words,  dropped  into  the  soul,  are  the 
germs  of  character,  supplicate  for  the  Slave. 
And  now,  Sir,  behold  a  new  and  heavenly  ally. 
A  woman,  inspired  by  Christian  genius,  enters 
the  lists,  like  another  Joan  of  Arc,  and  with 
marvellous  power  sweeps  the  popular  heart. 
Now  melting  to  tears,  and  now  inspiring  to 
rage,  her  work  everywhere  touches  the  con- 
science, and  makes  the  Slave-Hunter  more  hate- 
ful. In  a  brief  period,  nearly  one  hundred 
thousand  copies  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  have 
been  already  circulated.  But  this  extraordinary 
and  sudden  success,  surpassing  all  other  in- 
stances in  the  records  of  literature,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  but  the  triumph  of  genius.  Better 
far,  it  is  the  testimony  of  the  people,  by  an  un- 
precedented act,  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 
These  things  I  dwell  upon  as  incentives  and 
tokens  of  an  existing  public  sentiment,  render- 
ing this  Act  practically  inoperative,  except  as 
a  tremendous  engine  of  horror.  Sir,  the  senti- 
ment is  just.  Even  in  the  lands  of  Slavery,  the 
slave-trader  is  loathed  as  an  ignoble  character, 
from  whom  the  countenance  is  turned  away ; 
and  can  the  Slave-Hunter  be  more  regarded, 
while  pursuing  his  prey  in  a  land  of  Freedom  ? 
In  early  Europe,  in  barbarous  days,  while  Sla- 


334  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

very  prevailed,  a  Hunting  Master  was  held  in 
aversion.  Nor  was  this  all.  The  fugitive  was 
welcomed  in  the  cities,  and  protected  against 
pursuit.  Sometimes  vengeance  awaited  the 
Hunter.  Down  to  this  day,  at  Revel,  now  a 
Russian  city,  a  sword  is  proudly  preserved  with 
which  a  hunting  Baron  was  beheaded,  who,  in 
violation  of  the  municipal  rights  of  the  place, 
seized  a  fugitive  slave.  Hostile  to  this  Act  as 
our  public  sentiment  may  be,  it  exhibits  no 
similar  trophy.  The  State  laws  of  Massachu- 
setts have  been  violated  in  the  seizure  of  a 
fugitive  slave  ;  but  no  sword,  like  that  of  Revel, 
now  hangs  at  Boston. 

*  *  *  #•  •*  *  #i« 
And  now,  Sir,  let  us  review  the  field  over 
which  we  have  passed.  We  have  seen  that  any 
compromise,  finally  closing  the  discussion  of  Sla- 
very under  the  Constitution,  is  tyrannical,  ab- 
surd, and  impotent ;  that,  as  Slavery  can  exist 
only  by  virtue  of  positive  law,  and  as  it  has  no 
such  positive  support  in  the  Constitution,  it  can- 
not exist  within  the  national  jurisdiction  ;  that 
the  Constitution  nowhere  recognizes  property  in 
man,  and  that,  according  to  its  true  interpre- 
tation, Freedom  and  not  Slavery  is  national, 
while  Slavery  and  not  Freedom  is  sectional ; 


REPEAL   OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW.     33$ 

that  in  this  spirit  the  National  Government  was 
first  organized  under  Washington,  himself  an 
Abolitionist,  surrounded  by  Abolitionists,  while 
the  whole  country,  by  its  Church,  its  Colleges, 
its  Literature,  and  all  its  best  voices,  was  united 
against  Slavery,  and  the  national  flag  at  that 
time  nowhere  within  the  National  Territory 
covered  a  single  slave ;  still  further,  that  the 
National  Government  is  a  government  of  dele- 
gated powers,  and,  as  among  these  there  is  no 
power  to  support  Slavery,  this  institution  can- 
not be  national,  nor  can  Congress  in  any  way 
legislate  in  its  behalf ;  and,  finally,  that  the  es- 
tablishment of  this  principle  is  the  true  way  of 
peace  and  safety  for  the  Republic.  Consider- 
ing next  the  provision  for  the  surrender  of  fugi- 
tives from  service,  we  have  seen  that  it  was  not 
one  of  the  original  compromises  of  the  Consti- 
tution ;  that  it  was  introduced  tardily  and  with 
hesitation,  and  adopted  with  little  discussion, 
while  then  and  for  a  long  period  thereafter  it 
was  regarded  with  comparative  indifference  ; 
that  the  recent  Slave  Act,  though  many  times 
unconstitutional,  is  especially  so  on  two  grounds, 
— first,  as  a  usurpation  by  Congress  of  powers 
not  granted  by  the  Constitution,  and  an  infrac- 
tion of  rights  secured  to  the  States,  and,  sec- 


CHARLES  SUMNER. 

ondly,  as  the  denial  of  Trial  by  Jury,  in  a  question 
of  personal  liberty  and  a  suit  at  Common  Law ; 
that  its  glaring  unconstitutionality  finds  a  pro- 
totype in  the  British  Stamp  Act,  which  our 
fathers  refused  to  obey  as  unconstitutional  on 
two  parallel  grounds, — first,  because  it  was  a 
usurpation  by  Parliament  of  powers  not  be- 
longing to  it  under  the  British  Constitution, 
and  an  infraction  of  rights  belonging  to  the 
Colonies,  and,  secondly,  because  it  was  the  denial 
of  Trial  by  Jury  in  certain  cases  of  property ; 
that,  as  Liberty  is  far  above  property,  so  is  the 
outrage  perpetrated  by  the  American  Congress 
far  above  that  perpetrated  by  the  British  Par- 
liament ;  and,  finally,  that  the  Slave  Act  has 
not  that  support,  in  the  public  sentiment  of  the 
States  where  it  is  to  be  executed,  which  is  the 
life  of  all  law,  and  which  prudence  and  the  pre- 
cept of  Washington  require. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  occupied  much  time  ; 
but  the  great  subject  still  stretches  before  us. 
One  other  point  yet  remains,  which  I  must  not 
leave  untouched,  and  which  justly  belongs  to 
the  close.  The  Slave  Act  violates  the  Consti- 
tution, and  shocks  the  Public  Conscience.  With 
modesty,  and  yet  with  firmness,  let  me  add,  Sir, 


REPEAL    OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW. 

it  offends  against  the  Divine  Law.  No  such 
enactment  is  entitled  to  support.  As  the 
throne  of  God  is  above  every  earthly  throne, 
so  are  his  laws  and  statutes  above  all  the  laws 
and  statutes  of  man.18  To  question  these  is  to 
question  God  himself.  But  to  assume  that  hu- 
man laws  are  beyond  question  is  to  claim  for 
their  fallible  authors  infallibility.  To  assume 
that  they  are  always  in  conformity  with  the 
laws  of  God  is  presumptuously  and  impiously 
to  exalt  man  even  to  equality  with  God. 
Clearly,  human  laws  are  not  always  in  such 
conformity ;  nor  can  they  ever  be  beyond  ques- 
tion from  each  individual.  Where  the  conflict 
is  open,  as  if  Congress  should  command  the 
perpetration  of  murder,  the  office  of  conscience 
as  final  arbiter  is  undisputed.  But  in  every 
conflict  the  same  queenly  office  is  hers.  By  no 
earthly  power  can  she  be  dethroned.  Each 
person,  after  anxious  examination,  without 
haste,  without  passion,  solemnly  for  himself 
must  decide  this  great  controversy.  Any  other 
rule  attributes  infallibility  to  human  laws, 
places  them  beyond  question,  and  degrades  all 

men  to  an  unthinking,  passive  obedience. 
#         •*         *         •*         *         *         *« 

The   mandates  of  an  earthly  power   are   to 


VOL.  II. — 22 


338  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

be  discussed  ;  those  of  Heaven  must  at  once 
be  performed  ;  nor  should  we  suffer  ourselves  to 
be  drawn  by  any  compact  into  opposition  to 
God.  Such  is  the  rule  of  morals.  Such,  also,  by 
the  lips  of  judges  and  sages,  is  the  proud  declara- 
tion of  English  law,  whence  our  own  is  derived. 
In  this  conviction,  patriots  have  braved  unjust 
commands,  and  martyrs  have  died. 

And  now,  sir,  the  rule  is  commended  to  us. 
The  good  citizen,  who  sees  before  him  the 
shivering  fugitive,  guilty  of  no  crime,  pursued, 
hunted  down  like  a  beast,  while  praying  for 
Christian  help  and  deliverance,  and  then  reads 
the  requirements  of  this  Act,  is  filled  with  hor- 
ror. Here  is  a  despotic  mandate  "  to  aid  and 
assist  in  the  prompt  and  efficient  execution  of 
this  law."  Again  let  me  speak  frankly.  Not 
rashly  would  I  set  myself  against  any  require- 
ment of  law.  This  grave  responsibility  I  would 
not  lightly  assume.  But  here  the  path  of  duty 
is  clear.  By  the  Supreme  Law,  which  com- 
mands me  to  do  no  injustice,  by  the  compre- 
hensive Christian  Law  of  Brotherhood,  by  the 
Constitution,  which  I  have  sworn  to  support,  I 
AM  BOUND  TO  DISOBEY  THIS  ACT.  Never,  in 
any  capacity,  can  I  render  voluntary  aid  in 
its  execution.  Pains  and  penalties  I  will  en- 


REPEAL  OF  FUGITIVE   SLAVE  LAW.     339 

dure,  but  this  great  wrong,  I  will  not  do. 
"Where  I  cannot  obey  actively,  there  I  am 
willing  to  lie  down  and  to  suffer  what  they  shall 
do  unto  me " ;  such  was  the  exclamation  of 
him  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  Pilgrims 
Progress  while  in  prison  for  disobedience  to 
an  earthly  statute.  Better  suffer  injustice  than 
do  it.  Better  victim  than  instrument  of  wrong. 
Better  even  the  poor  slave  returned  to  bondage 
than  the  wretched  Commissioner. 

There  is,  sir,  an  incident  of  history  which 
suggests  a  parallel,  and  affords  a  lesson  of  fidel- 
ity. Under  the  triumphant  exertions  of  that 
Apostolic  Jesuit,  St.  Francis  Xavier,  large  num- 
bers of  Japanese,  amounting  to  as  many  as  two 
hundred  thousand, — among  them  princes,  gen- 
erals, and  the  flower  of  the  nobility, — were 
converted  to  Christianity.  Afterwards,  amidst 
the  frenzy  of  civil  war,  religious  persecution- 
arose,  and  the  penalty  of  death  was  denounced 
against  all  who  refused  to  trample  upon  the 
effigy  of  the  Redeemer.  This  was  the  Pagan 
law  of  a  Pagan  land.  But  the  delighted  histor- 
ian records,  that  from  the  multitude  of  con- 
verts scarcely  one  was  guilty  of  this  apostasy. 
The  law  of  man  was  set  at  naught.  Imprison- 
ment, torture,  death,  were  preferred.  Thus 


340  CHARLES  SUMNER. 

did  this  people  refuse  to  trample  on  the  painted 
image.  Sir,  multitudes  among  us  will  not  be 
less  steadfast  in  refusing  to  trample  on  the 
living  image  of  their  Redeemer. 

Finally,  Sir,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  tran- 
quility,  cease  to  shock  the  Public  Conscience  ; 
for  the  sake  of  the  Constitution,  cease  to  exer- 
cise a  power  nowhere  granted,  and  which  vio- 
lates inviolable  rights  expressly  secured.  Leave 
this  question  where  it  was  left  by  our  fathers, 
at  the  formation  of  our  National  Government, — 
in  the  absolute  control  of  the  States,  the  ap- 
pointed guardians  of  Personal  Liberty.  Repeal 
this  enactment.  Let  its  terrors  no  longer  rage 
through  the  land.  Mindful  of  the  lowly  whom 
it  pursues,  mindful  of  the  good  men  perplexed 
by  its  requirements,  in  the  name  of  Chanty,  in 
the  name  of  the  Constitution,  repeal  this  enact- 
ment, totally  and  without  delay.  There  is  the 
example  of  Washington,  follow  it.  There  also 
are  words  of  Oriental  piety,  most  touching  and 
full  of  warning,  which  speak  to  all  mankind, 
and  now  especially  to  us :  "  Beware  of  the 
groans  of  wounded  souls,  since  the  inward 
sore  will  at  length  break  out.  Oppress  not  to 
the  utmost  a  single  heart  ;  for  a  solitary  sigh 
has  power  to  overturn  a  whole  world."40 


APPENDIX. 


NOTES. 


RUFUS  KING. 

I.  Rufus  King  was  born  in  Scarborough,  Maine,  then  a 
part  of  Massachusetts,  on  March  24,  1755.  He  graduated 
from  Harvard  College  in  1777.  While  at  college  he  earned  a 
reputation  by  his  proficiency  in  the  classics  and  by  unusual 
powers  in  oratory,  to  which  he  gave  special  attention.  During 
a  portion  of  the  Revolutionary  War  he  served  as  an  aide-de- 
camp to  General  Sullivan  in  the  expedition  against  the  British 
in  Rhode  Island.  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  Newbury- 
port,  Massachusetts,  in  1780.  He  won  early  and  notable 
success  in  the  law,  and  in  1783  he  was  elected  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts Legislature.  In  this  Legislature  Mr.  King  showed 
the  national  bent  of  his  mind  by  urging  that  full  authority  be 
granted  to  the  general  government  to  regulate  the  commerce 
of  the  States  and  that  the  five-per-cent.  impost  be  granted  to 
Congress.  In  1784  he  was  elected  by  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  to  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation.  In  this 
Congress  he  was  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  territory  and  prospective  States  of  the  North- 
west. Mr.  King  was  a  member  of  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1787,  and  in  the  discussions  of  that  Convention  he  bore 
an  able  and  prominent  part.  Few  men  contributed  more  than 
he  to  the  making  of  the  Constitution.  He  was  on  the  com- 
mittee to  which  was  assigned  the  duty  of  making  the  final 
draft  of  the  Constitution.  King  was  also  in  the  Massachusetts 
343 


344  NOTES. 

Convention  for  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  is 
largely  owing  to  his  efforts  there  that  Massachusetts  was  per- 
suaded to  ratify.  He  and  Fisher  Ames  were  to  the  Massachu- 
setts Convention  what  Hamilton  was  to  that  in  New  York  and 
Madison  and  Marshall  to  that  in  Virginia. 

In  1788  Mr.  King  moved  to  the  city  of  New  York.  The 
same  year  in  which  he  came  to  New  York  he  was  elected  to  the 
State  Legislature,  and  in  1789  he  "  received  the  unexampled 
welcome  "  of  an  election  as  one  of  New  York's  first  Senators 
in  the  United  States  Congress.  King  was  a  pronounced 
Federalist  in  politics.  Albert  Gallatin  having  been  elected  a 
Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  and  the  question  of  his  eligibility 
having  been  raised,  King  made  a  notable  speech  in  answer  to 
Burr  in  opposition  to  Gallatin's  right  to  the  seat.  He  was  a 
pronounced  advocate  of  Jay's  Treaty,  and  in  1794  he  was 
hissed  and  prevented  from  speaking  while  attempting,  in 
company  with  Hamilton,  to  address  the  public  in  defence  of 
the  treaty.  He  and  Hamilton  then  united  in  a  series  of  papers 
over  the  title  of  Camillus^  to  explain  and  defend  the  treaty 
before  the  public.  Of  these  papers,  the  ones  relating  to  com- 
mercial affairs  and  maritime  law  were  written  by  Mr.  King. 
In  1796  he  was  sent  by  Washington  as  our  envoy  to  England, 
where  he  remained  for  seven  years,  until  1803.  From  1803  to 
1813  he  was  in  private  life,  but  in  the  latter  year  he  was  again 
elected  as  United  States  Senator  from  New  York.  He  was 
nominated  for  Governor  by  the  New  York  Federalists  in  1816, 
and  was  voted  for  by  his  party  electors  for  President  against 
Monroe  the  same  year.  He  had  also  been  the  candidate  of  the 
Federal  party  for  Vice-President  in  1804  and  1808.  In  the 
Senate  in  1818  he  contributed  materially  to  bring  about  the 
passage  of  the  Navigation  Act  of  that  year,  and  his  speech  on 
that  subject  is  a  notable  one.  He  was  re-elected  to  the  Senate 
in  1819,  closing  his  Senatorial  course  in  1825.  He  then  ex- 
pected to  retire  from  public  life,  but  was  persuaded  by  Presi- 


RUFUS  KING.  345 

dent  J.  Q.  Adams  to  undertake  the  mission  to  Great  Britain. 
He  returned  home  in  1826  on  account  of  ill  health,  and  died 
at  Jamaica,  L.  I.,  April  29,  1827. 

King's  most  notable  public  service  in  his  late  years  was  in 
his  opposition  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  State. 
He  was  the  recognized  leader  of  the  anti-slavery  forces  in  this 
struggle.  His  speeches  were  but  meagrely  reported  in  the 
Annals  of  Congress,  but  the  substance  of  the  two  which  he 
made  in  the  Senate,  as  he  afterwards  gave  them  to  the  press, 
contain  the  main  arguments  for  his  side  of  the  controversy. 
No  one,  in  that  day,  could  speak  with  greater  authority  and 
more  weight  than  he  upon  the  Constitutional  phases  of  the 
question,  and  his  speeches  formed  the  basis  for  many  of  the 
subsequent  Congressional  debates  on  slavery. 

References : 

Lalor's,  Johnson's,  and  Appleton's  Cyclopedias. 

Moore's  American  Eloquence,  vol.  ii. 

MacMaster's  and  Schouler's  History  of  the  United  States. 

Life  and  Correspondence  of  Rufus  King. 

The  Annals  of  Congress. 

Benton's  Abridgment  of  Debates. 

2.  Historical  Note  on  the  Missouri  Question. 

The  struggle  over  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union 
was  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  long  slavery  controversy. 
The  Missouri  struggle  lasted  for  three  years,  from  March, 
1818,  to  March,  1821.  The  immediate  result  of  that  struggle 
was  the  admission  of  Missouri  without  restriction  as  to  slavery, 
accompanied  with  the  provision  that  slavery  should  be  forever 
excluded  from  all  the  Louisiana  purchase  north  of  36°  30'  ; 
the  line  which  formed  the  southern  boundary  of  Missouri.  In 
these  few  words  is  stated  the  substance  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise,— the  basis  of  adjustment  of  one  of  the  most  violent 
political  struggles,  the  outcome  of  one  of  the  ablest,  most 


346  NOTES. 

prolonged,  and  startling  debates  in  the  annals  of  the  American 
Congress. 

In  1789  there  were  seven  free  States — or  States  soon  sure 
to  be  free — and  six  slave  States.  From  1789  to  1820  States 
were  admitted  as  follows  :  Vermont,  1791  ;  Kentucky,  1792  ; 
Tennessee,  1796  ;  Ohio,  1803  ;  Louisiana,  1812  ;  Indiana, 
1816 ;  Mississippi,  1817;  Illinois,  1818  ;  Alabama,  1819. 
Approximately,  they  had  come  in  in  pairs,  slave  States  and 
free.  The  slave  States  had  gained  one  from  the  start,  and 
with  the  admission  of  Alabama  the  balance  was  struck,  in 
numbers  n  to  n.  It  was  in  this  equilibrium  of  political 
power  between  the  sections  as  represented  in  the  United 
States  Senate  that  the  struggle  over  Missouri  arose. 

The  Missouri  struggle  consisted  really  of  three  struggles. 
The  first  began  in  the  isth  Congress,  March,  1818,  when 
Missouri,  through  Mr.  Scott,  her  territorial  delegate  in  Con- 
gress, presented  a  petition  for  statehood.  Nothing  was  done 
with  the  enabling  act  for  Missouri  during  that  session.  At 
the  next  session,  November  18,  1818,  a  memorial  was  again 
presented  from  Missouri  praying  for  admission.  The  memorial 
was  referred  to  the  proper  committee,  and  an  enabling  act 
authorizing  Missouri  to  form  a  State  Constitution  preparatory 
to  admission  was  reported  to  the  Committee  of  the  whole 
House  on  February  13,  1819.  On  that  day,  Mr.  James  Tall- 
madge,  Jr.,  a  representative  from  New  York,  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  bill  providing 

1.  Against  the  further  introduction  of  slaves. 

2.  For  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves  already  there. 

"  The  motion  of  Tallmadge,"  says  the  Annals,  "  gave  rise 
to  an  interesting  and  pretty  wide  debate."  After  four  days  of 
discussion  the  bill  was  passed  with  the  Tallmadge  amendment 
by  a  sectional  vote,  87  to  76.  In  the  Senate  the  Tallmadge 
amendment  was  stricken  out  and  the  bill  returned  to  the 
House.  The  House  refused  to  concur  in  the  Senate's  action 


RUFUS  KING.  347 

and  the  bill  was  again  sent  to  the  Senate  with  a  message  of 
non-concurrence.  A  message  immediately  came  back  from 
the  Senate  that  that  body  still  adhered  to  its  exclusion  of 
the  Tallmadge  amendment,  and  the  House,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  again  voted  to  adhere  to  its  action, 
and  the  Missouri  bill  was  lost  with  the  Fifteenth  Congress, 
in  its  closing  hours  in  deadlock.  Thus  ended  the  first 
struggle. 

The  second  struggle  began  at  the  assembling  of  the  next 
Congress,  December  6,  1819.  During  the  summer  and  fall 
the  Missouri  question  was  widely  discussed  throughout  the 
country  by  platform  and  press.  State  Legislatures  passed 
resolutions  for  and  against  the  admission  of  Missouri.  Mr. 
Clay  was  the  Speaker  of  the  new  Congress,  as  he  had  been  of 
the  previous  one.  A  new  Missouri  bill  was  presented  the  first 
week  of  the  session.  It  did  not  come  up  in  the  House  for 
discussion  until  January  24,  1820.  On  the  26th  of  January, 
Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  offered  an  amendment  to  the  bill 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  new  State.  The  bill  with  this  re- 
strictive amendment  was  debated  almost  daily  for  nearly  a 
month,  until  February  igth,  when  a  bill  came  down  from  the 
Senate  to  admit  the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union  carrying 
the  whole  Missouri  bill,  without  restriction  as  to  slavery,  as  a 
"  rider." 

A  word  as  to  Maine.  By  an  act  of  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts the  people  of  that  part  of  Massachusetts  known  as  Maine 
were  permitted  to  form  themselves  into  an  independent  State. 
Massachusetts  thus  freely  consented  to  her  own  division,  but 
these  proceedings  were  to  be  void  unless  Maine  were  admitted 
to  the  Union  by  March  4,  1820.  Accordingly,  the  people  of 
Maine  formed  a  Constitution,  organized  a  State  government, 
and  petitioned  Congress  for  admission  to  the  Union.  No  en- 
abling act  was  required  for  Maine,  as  her  territory  did  not 
belong  to  the  United  States.  Her  case  was  exactly  parallel 


348  NOTES. 

with  that  of  Kentucky.  All  that  was  necessary  was  a  simple 
resolution  "  that  from  and  after  March  3,  1820,  the  State  of 
Maine  is  hereby  declared  to  be  one  of  the  United  States  of 
America,"  and  to  extend  the  United  States  jurisdiction  over 
her  territory,  and  to  assign  her  a  fair  proportion  of  representa- 
tives. This  would  have  been  an  easy  matter  but  for  the  issue 
over  Missouri.  The  House  had  passed  an  ordinary  Maine 
bill  January  3,  1820,  without  discussion.  The  Senate  had 
passed  a  similar  bill  to  a  second  reading  as  early  as  December 
22,  1819.  When  the  House  bill  for  Maine  came  to  the  Senate 
the  party  stroke  was  conceived  of  combining  the  two  bills,  for 
Maine  and  Missouri,  into  one,  thus  making  the  admission  of 
Maine  dependent  upon  the  unconditional  admission  of  Mis- 
souri. Henry  Clay  gave  public  approval  to  this  scheme  during 
the  discussion.  The  Maine  bill  with  the  Missouri  rider  was 
discussed  in  the  Senate  from  January  13  to  February  16, 
1820.  It  was  during  this  period  of  the  struggle  that  the 
speeches  of  King  and  Pinkney  were  made.  Amid  the  highest 
excitement  of  the  debate,  Mr.  Thomas,  Senator  from  Illinois, 
offered  an  amendment  to  the  Missouri  section  of  the  bill  in- 
volving the  terms  of  the  final  compromise, — that  Missouri 
should  be  admitted  as  a  slave  State,  but  that  slavery  should  be 
prohibited  in  the  rest  of  the  Louisiana  purchase  north  of  36°  30'. 
When  the  House  received  from  the  Senate  the  combination 
bill,  with  the  Thomas  provision,  it  refused  to  agree  to  the  log 
rolling  of  Maine  and  Missouri  into  one  bill.  This  was  on 
February  23d.  A  week  later  the  Senate  again  sent  a  message 
to  the  House  insisting  upon  the  combination.  The  House 
again  refused,  and  then  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  moved  in 
the  Senate  for  a  Committee  of  Conference.  The  House  agreed 
to  the  conference.  The  conferrees  appointed  were,  Senators 
Thomas,  of  Illinois,  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  Barbour,  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  Representatives  Holmes,  of  Massachusetts,  Taylor, 
of  New  York,  Lowndes,  of  South  Carolina,  Parker,  of  Massa- 


RUFUS  KING.  349 

chusetts,  and  Kinsey,  of  New  Jersey.     The  Conference  Com- 
mittee reported  three  distinct  recommendations  : 

1 .  The  Senate  should  give  up  a  combination  of  Missouri  in 
the  same  bill  with  Maine,  and  Maine  should  be  admitted. 

2.  The  House  should  abandon  the  attempt  to  restrict  slavery 
in  Missouri. 

3.  Both  Houses  should  agree  to  pass  the  Senate's  Missouri 
bill  with  the  Thomas  restriction  excluding  slavery  north  and 
west  of  that  State. 

The  House  agreed  to  this  arrangement  only  by  a  close  vote, 
90  to  87.  The  Missouri  bill,  enabling  Missouri  to  form  her 
State  Constitution  without  restriction  as  to  slavery,  passed  both 
Houses  on  March  2,  1820.  The  next  day  the  Maine  bill  passed 
the  Senate.  Thus  Maine  was  admitted  in  time  to  preserve 
her  separate  organization,  and  the  people  of  Missouri  were 
authorized  to  form  a  State  government  and  Constitution. 
Thus  ended  the  second  struggle. 

In  reviewing  the  struggle  in  his  mind  the  careful  student 
will  distinguish  here  between  the  two  totally  distinct  proposi- 
tions in  reference  to  restriction  :  (i)  The  original  restriction  of 
Tallmadge,  which  Clay  vehemently  opposed,  proposed  the  ex- 
clusion of  slavery  from  Missouri.  This  was  restriction  on  a 
State,  and  was  opposed  on  that  ground.  (2)  The  final  restric- 
tion of  Thomas  proposed  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States  north  and  west  of  Missouri. 
This  proposition  was  adopted  ;  but  it  did  not  emanate  from 
the  original  Missouri  restrictionists,  nor  did  it  by  any  means 
satisfy  them.  The  final  compromise  measure  was  proposed 
by  a  steadfast  opponent  of  the  original  Tallmadge  amendment. 
"  The  current  assumption,  "says  Greeley,  "  that  this  restriction 
was  proposed  by  Rufus  King,  of  New  York,  and  mainly  sus- 
tained by  the  antagonists  of  slavery,  is  wholly  mistaken.  The 
truth,  doubtless,  is  that  it  was  suggested  by  the  more  moderate 
opponents  of  restriction  on  Missouri  as  a  means  of  overcoming 


350  NOTES. 

the  resistance  of  the  House  to  slavery  in  Missouri.  It  was,  in 
effect,  an  offer  from  the  milder  opponents  of  slavery  restriction 
to  the  more  moderate  and  flexible  advocates  of  that  restriction. 
'  Let  us  have  slavery  in  Missouri  and  we  will  unite  with  you 
in  excluding  it  from  all  the  uninhabited  territories  north  and 
west  of  that  State.'  It  was  in  substance  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  North  and  the  South  to  that  effect,  though  the  more 
determined  champions,  whether  of  slavery  extension  or  slavery 
restriction,  did  not  unite  in  it."  *  This  statement  of  Greeley 
is  borne  out  by  the  record  and  the  final  vote.  After  the  pro- 
longed and  bitter  contest ;  after  a  debate,  then  without  a  paral- 
lel in  the  history  of  Congress,  a  debate  equalled  only  in  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1787,  which  itself  had  settled  the 
slavery  question  by  compromises  ;  facing  bitter  prophecies  of 
disunion  as  an  alternative  ;  with  earnest  and  impassioned  ap- 
peals for  peace  and  compromise  still  resounding  in  their  ears, 
eighty-seven  original  restrictions  still  held  out  for  restriction 
on  Missouri.  They  would  not  consent  to  a  single  other  slave 
State  in  the  American  Union,  and  restriction  was  finally 
abandoned  only  by  a  majority  of  three  votes.  Slavery  was  al- 
lowed in  Missouri,  and  restriction  was  beaten  only  by  the  plan 
of  proffering  instead  an  exclusion  of  slavery  from  all  the  then 
Federal  territory  west  and  north  of  that  State.  Without  this 
compromise,  or  its  equivalent,  the  Northern  votes  needed  to 
pass  the  bill  could  not  have  been  obtained,  f 

The  third  struggle  over  Missouri,  though  the  most  animated 
and  bitter  of  all,  arose  over  what  is,  historically,  a  minor  mat- 
ter. A  Missouri  Convention  adopted  a  Constitution  for  the 
new  State  July  19,  1820.  In  their  displeasure  at  the  delay 
imposed  upom  them,  and  with  a  feeling  that  they  should  be 
allowed  to  settle  the  slavery  question  for  themselves,  the  people 

*  Political  Text  Book,  1860,  p.  63. 
f  Greeley,  Political  Text  Book,  1860. 


RUFUS  KING.  351 

of  Missouri  inserted  a  clause  in  their  Constitution  requiring 
the  State  Legislature  to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes 
from  coming  into  that  State.  When  this  Constitution  was 
submitted  to  Congress  November  20,  1820,  the  anti-slavery 
men  refused  to  vote  for  Missouri's  admission  under  it,  on  the 
ground  that  the  objectionable  clause  was  in  violation  of  the 
United  States  Constitution,  which  declares  that  "the  citizens 
of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immu- 
nities of  citizens  of  the  several  States. " 

In  speaking  of  the  objectionable  clause  in  Missouri's  Con- 
stitution, Benton  says  :  ' '  This  clause  was  laid  hold  of  in  Con- 
gress to  resist  the  admission  of  the  State  ;  but  the  real  point 
of  objection  was  the  slavery  clause  and  the  existence  of  slavery 
in  the  State."  *  Whether  or  not  this  was  used  as  a  mere  pre- 
text by  the  anti-slavery  men  to  keep  Missouri  out  while  she 
tolerated  slavery,  it  is  certain  that  the  refusal  to  admit  her 
under  the  Constitution  which  she  had  prepared  led  to  a  more 
heated  and  acrimonious  debate  than  any  that  had  preceded. 
The  struggle  lasted  through  the  winter  of  1820-21.  The 
South  charged  bad  faith  upon  the  North.  Maine  had  been 
admitted  and  restriction  had  been  applied  to  all  the  Louisiana 
territory  outside  of  Missouri.  Missouri's  admission  on  her 
own  terms  was  the  price  agreed  to  for  this  exclusion  of  slavery 
and  the  admission  of  Maine.  The  price  should  now  be  paid. 
If  not,  the  compromise  and  settlement  of  the  previous  spring 
would  have  to  be  undone,  as  far  as  possible.  The  admission 
of  Maine  could  not  be  undone.  But  if  the  Northern  repre- 
sentatives now  refused  to  admit  Missouri  they  would  be  as  the 
receivers  of  stolen  goods.  But  the  Northern  members  per- 
sistently refused  to  vote  for  Missouri's  admission  until  it  was 
agreed  "  that  the  objectionable  clause  of  her  Constitution 
should  never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any 

*  Thirty  Years1  View,  vol.  i.,  pp.  8  and  9. 


352  NOTES. 

laws,  and  that  no  laws  should  ever  be  passed,  by  which  any 
citizen  of  either  of  the  States  of  the  Union  shall  be  excluded 
from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  immunities 
to  which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  ;  that  the  Legislature  of  said  State,  by  a  solemn 
public  act,  shall  declare  the  assent  of  said  State  to  the  said 
fundamental  condition."  Upon  the  transmission  of  this  act  to 
the  chief  executive,  the  President  was  to  proclaim  the  admis- 
sion of  Missouri. 

"With  this  the  struggle  ended  and  the  long  controversy  over 
Missouri  passed  into  history. 

Taken  in  connection  with  its  subsequent  repeal  in  1854,  the 
struggle  has  a  particularly  significant  feature.  It  was  not  a  con- 
test over  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories. The  Southern  contention  was,  chiefly,  that  Congress 
had  no  power  nor  right  to  impose  conditions  upon  an  incoming 
State.  Though  the  struggle  lasted  more  than  three  years,  the 
final  proposition  closing  the  controversy,  which  prohibited 
slavery  in  almost  all  the  then  Federal  territory,  was  debated 
but  a  few  hours.  Very  few  slavery  extensionists  questioned 
the  power  of  Congress  to  prevent  the  spread  of  slavery  into  the 
Territories.  Wirt,  Crawford,  and  Calhoun,  Southern  members 
of  Monroe's  Cabinet,  all  agreed  that  Congress  possessed  such 
power.  But  John  Quincy  Adams,  a  Northern,  anti-slavery 
man,  who  was  also  a  member  of  Monroe's  Cabinet,  while  hold- 
ing the  same  position  on  the  territorial  question,  believed  that 
it  was  unconstitutional  to  impose  conditions  upon  a  State.  In 
1854,  when  it  was  proposed,  by  the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill,  to 
repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  the  question  of  the  prohi- 
bition of  slavery  in  the  territories  was  primary  and  dominant, 
but  in  1820,  when  the  territorial  restriction  was  imposed,  that 
question  was  secondary  and  incidental. 

See  Annals  of  Congress. 

Von  Hoist's  United  States  Const.  History. 


RUFUS  KING.  353 

Schouler's  United  States  History. 

MacMaster's  United  States  History. 

Woodburn's  Historical  Significance  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, in  the  Papers  of  the  American  Historical  Associa- 
tion, 1893. 

3.  Maryland  and  New  Jersey  made  special  objections  to  the 
ratification  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  on  account  of  the 
Western  lands,  Maryland  persistently  refusing  to  ratify  until 
the  cession  of  those  lands  to  the  general  government  was 
guaranteed  by  the  claimant  States.  Maryland  feared  that  Vir- 
ginia, by  the  sale  of  her  Western  lands,  would  be  able  to  lower 
her  taxes  and  thus  offer  special  attractions  to  new  settlers  and 
citizens  ;  or  that  a  tributary  State  subject  to  the  influence  and 
control  of  Virginia  might  be  erected  in  the  Northwest  Terri- 
tory. In  her  paper  of  May  21,  1779,  setting  forth  her  objec- 
tions to  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  her  refusal  to  ratify 
until  cessions  were  made  of  the  Western  lands,  Maryland  said : 
4<  We  are  convinced  that  policy  and  justice  require  that  a 
country  unsettled  at  the  commencement  of  this  war,  claimed 
by  the  British  Crown  and  ceded  to  it  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris, 
1763,  if  wrested  from  the  common  enemy  by  the  blood  and 
treasure  of  the  thirteen  States,  should  be  considered  as  a  com- 
mon property,  subject  to  be  parcelled  out  by  Congress  into 
free,  convenient,  and  independent  governments  in  such  man- 
ner and  at  such  time  as  the  wisdom  of  that  assembly  shall 
hereafter  direct." 

In  1780,  in  order  to  induce  the  claimant  States  to  make  the 
cession  of  their  lands,  Congress  passed  the  following  resolu- 
tion, which  has  ever  since  been  the  basis  of  our  national  policy 
in  the  erection  of  new  States  : 

Resolved,  That  the  unappropriated  lands  that  may  be  ceded 
or  relinquished  to  the  United  States  by  any  particular  State, 
pursuant  to  the  recommendation  of  Congress  of  the  6th  day  of 

VOL.    II. 23 


354  NOTES. 

September  last,  shall  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of 
the  United  States,  and  be  settled  and  formed  into  distinct  re- 
publican States,  which  shall  become  members  of  the  federal 
union,  and  have  the  same  rights  of  sovereignty  and  freedom 
and  independence  as  the  other  States. 

See  Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  i. 

H.  B.  Adams'  Maryland's  Service  in  the  Land  Cessions, 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies. 

Schouler's  United  States  History,  vol.  i. 

4.  It  was  in  1819,  during  the  discussions  on  the  Missouri 
bill  that  the  bill  organizing  Arkansas  as  a  separate  Territory 
was  passed.     An  attempt  was  made — led  by  Taylor  of  New 
York— to  attach  to  the  bill  a  clause  prohibiting  slavery  in  the 
Arkansas  Territory.     "  This  motion,  says  the  Annals,  "  gave 
rise  to  a  wide  and  long  continued  debate,  covering  part  of  the 
ground  previously  occupied  on  this  subject,  but  differing  in 
part,  as  the  proposition  for  Arkansas  was  to  impose  a  condition 
on  a  Territorial  government  instead  of,  as  in  the  former  case, 
to  enjoin  the  adoption  of  the  prohibitive  principle  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  a  State." 

This  distinction  is  important  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
chief  argument  against  restriction  on  Missouri  was  based  on 
the  sovereignty  and  equality  of  the  States.  (See  Pinkney's 
argument.)  The  case  of  Arkansas  presented  the  plain,  unin- 
cumbered  question  of  the  right  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  the  Territories.  Very  few  persons  in  1820  denied  the  power 
of  Congress  to  do  this.  Slavery  restriction  on  Arkansas  failed 
chiefly  because  of  complication  with  the  Missouri  question. 

See  Historical  Significance  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
American  Historical  Association  Papers  for  1893. 

5.  The  omission  contains  but  a  brief  remark  to  the  effect 
that  it  was  the  situation  and  the  habits  of  the  people  in  New 
Orleans  which  prevented  the  imposition  of  still  another  con- 


RUFUS  KING.  355 

dition  upon  Louisiana.  The  conditions  which  were  imposed 
indicated  the  power  of  Congress  to  exclude  slavery  from  the 
new  State  in  1812.  The  omission  of  the  condition  was  within 
the  discretion  of  Congress. 

6.  This  language  is  from  the  Treaty  by  which  we  secured 
Louisiana  in  1803. 

7.  King  here  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  last  part  of 
the  clause  quoted  from  the  Louisiana  Treaty  is  but  the  usual 
formula  in  the  transference  of  territory.     He  proceeds  to  give 
a  special  examination  to  the  word  **  property  "  to  show  that  a 
guaranty  to  slave  ownership  was  not  stipulated. 

8.  In  this  omission  Mr.  King  refers  to  the  precedent  which 
influenced  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  178710  fix  upon 
the  three-fifths  rule  of  representation.  By  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation the  States  were  to  pay  into  the  common  treasury  in 
proportion  to  the  value  of  their  lands,  houses,  and  improve- 
ments.    This  was  not  satisfactory,  and  in  1783,  in  the  5  per 
cent,  impost  act  of  that  year,  it  was  agreed  by  Congress  that 
taxes  should  be  apportioned  among  the  States  in  proportion  to 
the  population,  counting  three  fifths  bf  the  slaves.     All  the 
States  did  not  consent  to  this,  and  the  project  fell  through. 
But  when  the  Convention  came  to  the  question  of  representa- 
tion in  1787,  since  it  had  been  a  principle  of  the  Revolution 
that  representation  and  taxation  should  go  together,  this  act  of 
Congress  of  1783  was  looked  to  as  a  pertinent  and  weighty 
precedent.     King  refers  to  it  to  show  its  influence  in  settling 
the  question  of  representation  in  1787.     The  question   was 
then  unavoidably  complicated  with  other  matters  ;  but  in  1820, 
in  the  case  of  Missouri  v  the  question  of  slave  representation 
assumes  the  phase  of  an  original  question. 

9.  King  here  discusses  the  evils  of  slavery,  its  restraints 
upon  the  strength,  industry,  and  the  tax-paying  capacity  of  a 


356  NOTES. 

State  ;  and  he  urged  that  whether  slavery  was  to  extend  to  the 
prospective  States  in  the  South  and  West  depended  on 
whether  it  was  permitted  in  Missouri.  Security  both  against 
domestic  violence  and  an  exposed  frontier  depended  on  the 
extension  of  free  States  in  the  West. 

10.  This   argument   was   made   prominent    by   those  who 
advocated  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  State.     The 
evils  of  slavery  were  to  be  "  diluted."     With  the  slaves  thus 
dispersed,  their  condition  would  be  bettered  ;    their  numbers 
would  be  the  same,  and  their  health  and  comfort  would  be 
increased.     Jefferson  and  Clay  both  made  this  plea.     King 
effectually  refutes  it. 

See  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  vii.,  p.  194. 

11.  On  the  other  hand  King  shows  that  the  increase  of  free 
States  makes  for  the  amelioration  of  the  slaves  and  promotes 
the  spirit  of  emancipation.     He  refers,  also,  to  the  growing 
desire  to  benefit  the  free  colored  people  by  colonizing  them. 
In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  notice  a  proposition  of 
King's  made  in  the  Senate  subsequent  to  the  time  of  this 
speech,  that  after  the  public  debts  were  paid  the  proceeds  from 
the  sale  of  public  lands  should  be  converted  into  a  fund  to 
provide  for  the  colonization  and  emancipation  of  the  blacks. 

12.  This  speech  of  King's  is  not  reported  in  the  Annals. 
The  author  furnished  it  from   notes  and   memory  to  Niles' 
Register  "substantially  as  he  made  it."    See  Niles,  vol.  xvii., 
p.  215  (1819). 

King  did  not  favor  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  finally 
agreed  upon.  He  was  not  one  of  the  moderate  opponents  of 
slavery  extension,  and  was  therefore  hot  willing  to  consent  to 
Missouri's  coming  in  as  a  slave. State  even  for  the  considera- 
tion offered.  He  was,  however,  not  an  abolitionist,  as  this 
term  came  to  be  understood  in  connection  with  Garrison  and 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY.  357 

Phillips.  He  was  not  an  agitator,  seeking  to  abolish  slavery 
within  the  States,  or  to  disturb  the  relations  of  the  States  to 
one  another.  In  a  letter  which  forms  the  preface  to  these 
speeches  as  published  in  1819  he  says  : 

"  I  am  particularly  anxious  not  to  be  misunderstood  on  this 
subject,  never  having  thought  myself  at  liberty  to  encourage, 
or  to  assent  to,  any  measure  that  would  affect  the  security  of 
property  in  slaves,  or  tend  to  disturb  the  political  adjustment 
which  the  Constitution  has  established  respecting  them  ;  I  de- 
sire to  be  considered  as  still  adhering  to  this  reserve  ;  and 
that  the  observations  should  be  construed  to  refer,  and  to  be 
confined,  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  new  States,  to  be 
formed  beyond  the  original  limits  of  the  United  States,  a  pro- 
hibition which,  in  my  judgment,  Congress  have  the  power  to 
establish,  and  the  omission  of  which  may,  as  I  fear,  be  pro- 
ductive of  most  serious  consequences." 

King  may  fairly  be  said  to  be  the  anti-slavery  statesman  of 
the  Missouri  conflict.  His  attitude  toward  slavery  in  1820 
may  be  compared  to  that  of  Seward  in  1850-60.  Neither 
statesman  disregarded  the  moral  and  social  evils  of  slavery, 
but  that  which  they  particularly  emphasized  was  the  dispro- 
portion in  political  power  which  the  slave  system  gave  to  the 
Slave  States  of  the  Union,  new  and  old,  and  the  consequent 
control  which  this  gave  over  our  National  policy.  It  was, 
after  all,  resistance  to  this  complete  control  which  became  the 
basis  for  the  formation  of  the  Republican  party  in  1854-6. 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY. 

I.  William  Pinkney  was  born  at  Annapolis,  Md.,  March  17, 
1764.  The  South  Carolina  Pinckneys,  though  they  spell  their 
name  differently,  are  a  branch  of  the  same  family.  William 
Pinkney 's  father  was  an  American  Tory  during  the  Revolu- 


358  NOTES, 

tion,  and  was  dispossessed  of  his  property  by  confiscation  ; 
and  this  caused  young  Pinkney  to  relinquish  his  studies  at  an 
early  age.  He  himself  was  a  patriotic  advocate  of  the  Ameri- 
can cause.  He  studied  law,  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in 
1786.  He  had  at  first  pursued  the  study  of  medicine,  but 
soon  abandoned  it  as  unsuited  to  his  taste.  He  was  a  mem- 
ber, in  1788,  of  the  Maryland  Convention  for  the  ratification 
of  the  Constitution.  From  1788  to  1792  he  was  a  member  of 
the  Maryland  House  of  Delegates.  In  1796  he  became  one 
of  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  on  the  Commis- 
sions provided  by  Jay's  Treaty  for  the  adjustment  of  claims 
growing  out  of  English  spoliations  on  our  commerce.  In 
1805,  upon  his  return  to  this  country,  he  became  Attorney 
General  of  Maryland.  In  1806  he  was  associated  with  Mr. 
Monroe  on  a  Mission  to  England,  in  our  attempt  to  secure  a 
settlement  of  commercial  differences.  The  Treaty  agreed  to 
by  Monroe  and  Pinkney  left  unsettled  the  question  of  impress- 
ment and  search,  and  it  was  not  submitted  to  the  Senate  by 
Jefferson.  Monroe  soon  retired  from  London,  and  Pinkney 
was  our  sole  representative  there  until  1811.  During  the  War 
of  1812  Mr.  Pinkney  warmly  supported  the  policy  of  the 
administration.  He  became  the  commander  of  a  volunteer 
corps,  and  was  severely  wounded  at  Bladensburg.  He  was 
for  a  while,  in  1811,  a  member  of  the  State  Senate  of  Mary- 
land, and,  from  1812-14,  was  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States  by  appointment  of  President  Madison.  He  resigned 
this  office  when  Congress  required,  by  law,  that  the  Cabinet 
officers  should  reside  at  the  seat  of  government.  Pinkney's 
private  practice  was  too  lucrative  to  sacrifice.  In  1815  Pink- 
ney was  elected  to  Congress,  and  in  the  following  year  he  was 
sent  abroad  on  a  double  mission,  as  Minister  to  Russia  and  as 
special  envoy  to  Naples.  The  latter  mission  was  for  the  pur- 
pose of  recovering  indemnification  for  seizures  and  confisca- 
tions of  the  Neapolitan  government  in  1809,  during  the  reign 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY.  359 

of  Murat.  Naples  seems  not  to  have  recognized  the  justice  of 
these  claims.  Pinkney  remained  in  Russia  until  1818.  He 
took  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate  in  1820.  The 
speech  on  the  Missouri  bill  was  his  most  notable  effort  during 
his  senatorial  career.  He  died  after  a  service  of  two  years,  on 
February  25,  1822. 

Another  of  Pinkney's  most  celebrated  speeches  was  his  argu- 
ment before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  the  Nereide,  ID 
1815. 

References  : 

Moore's  American  Eloquence,  vol.  ii. 
Wheaton's  Life  of  Pinkney. 
Perry's  Sketches  of  American  Statesmen. 
Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography. 
Life  of  Pinkney,  by  Rev.  William  Pinkney. 
The  standard  Cyclopaedias. 

2.  See  Note  2  on  King's  Speech,  pp.  345-352. 

3.  He  continues  in  general  introductory  remarks. 

4.  He  indulges  in  a  eulogy  on  the  Union  and  expresses  his 
belief  in  its  perpetuity. 

5.  The  Vice-President,  Mr.  Daniel  D.  Tompkins. 

6.  "  Whose  it  is  to  give,  it  is  his  to  deny." 

7.  In  this  highly  rhetorical  language  Pinkney  indicates  one 
of  the  significant  issues  at  stake  in  the  controversy  :  "  Has 
Congress  the  right  to  impose  conditions  upon  a  State  ?  "     No 
one  now  questions  this  right,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  is 
exercised  now  is  very  much  greater  than  it  was  thought  of  in 
the   early  days  of   the   Republic.      The   early  admission  of 
States  was  without  an  enabling  act ;   in  the  case  of  Vermont 
and  Kentucky,  a  resolution  merely  consented  to  the  admission 


360  NOTES. 

of  the  new  State.  Now  we  usually  have  an  elaborate  law 
undertaking  to  limit  the  power  of  the  people  over  their  State 
Constitution,  and,  as  in  the  case  of  Utah,  the  conditions  have 
extended  so  far  as  to  deny  the  franchise  to  all  persons  of  a 
certain  religious  faith  and  practice.  And  a  recent  writer  has 
gone  so  far,  in  discussing  the  inequality  of  representation  in 
the  United  States  Senate,  as  to  propose  that  new  States  should 
hereafter  be  required  to  submit  to  the  condition  of  being  satis- 
fied with  one  Senator  in  the  upper  house  of  Congress  until  its 
population  should  reach  500,000.  See  the  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  June,  1895.  There  is  quite  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  whether  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  enabling  act  are 
binding  after  the  admission  of  the  State.  See  King's  Speech, 
p.  33,  and  The  Historical  Significance  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, Papers  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1893, 
P-  295. 

8.  The  orator  here  indulges  in  a  brief  strain  of  moralizing 
and  generalization, — that  encroachments  are   always  apt  to 
come  in  the  garb  of  humanity  and  piety. 

9.  "  Medicine  to  it,"  a  use  of  the  word  which  is  rare  if  not 
obsolete  now. 

10.  He  speaks  to  the  plea  that  this  discretion  will  not  be 
abused.  Unlimited,  irresponsible  power  is  always  perilous.   No 
one  can  foretell  what  changes  and  abuses  may  arise  if  once  it 
is  conceded  that  such  power  may  be  exercised. 

11.  This  argument  is  based  on  the  well-known  "  compact  " 
view  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Union.     It  agrees  with  the  view 
expressed  by  Josiah  Quincy  in  his  speech  on  the  admission  of 
Louisiana.     See  vol.  i.,  of  this  series.     The  same  argument 
on  "  the  Missouri  questions  "  appears  to  have  been  made  by 
Charles  Pinckney  of  South  Carolina.     See  the  extract  from 
Von  Hoist,  Note  20. 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY.  361 

12.  The  omitted  passage  considers  whether,  conceding  that 
Congress  may  admit  or  reject  at  discretion,  it  may  impose 
conditions, — whether  Congress  could  impose  a  condition  which 
would  change  the  character  of  the  Federal  compact. 

13.  In  this  omission  Pinkney  urges  the  argument  that  the 
conditions  would  not  bind  the  State  after  its  admission.   "  No 
Territory,  in  order  to  become  a  State,  can  alienate  or  sur- 
render any  portion  of  its  sovereignty." 

14.  He  speaks  of  the  ancient  origins  of  slavery  and  answers 
King's  appeal  to  Greek  and  Roman  law  and  to  Magna  Charta 
and  English  precedents;    he   finds   "other  long  sanctioned 
establishments  and  unquestioned  rights  with  which  fraud  and 
violence  may  claim  a  fearful  connection."     The  South  is  not 
responsible  for  its  slavery. 

15.  He  enters  into  a  discussion  of  the  nature  of  sovereignty, 
and  of  the  sovereign  powers  which  had  been  surrendered  by 
the  States. 

16.  He  makes  a  distinction  between   the  form  of  a  new 
State  government  and  the  laws  of  that  government  respecting 
slavery. 

17.  The  omission  contains  remarks  upon  the  suffrage  for 
women  as  an  essential  in  the  definition  of  a  republican  State. 
His  argument  is  that  abstract  definitions  cannot  be  of  great 
weight  in  the  discussion. 

1 8.  Pinkney  argues  at  some  length  here   that   the  word 
"  migration"  in  this  clause  does  not  apply  to  slaves  and  their 
movement  from  State  to  State. 

19.  Senator  Burrill. 

20.  "  We  must  do  the  South  the  justice  to  admit  that  in 
this  struggle  over  constitutional  questions  it  did  not  indulge 


362  NOTES. 

in  the  verbal  quibbling  which  became  more  and  more  the  rule 
in  such  debates.  It  placed  itself  openly,  and  without  any  du- 
plicity, on  the  broadest  basis  upon  which  it  could  take  posi- 
tion. It  denied  to  Congress  the  least  shadow  of  right  to  make 
the  admission  of  a  Territory  as  a  State  of  the  Union  dependent 
upon  any  conditions  whatever.  This  view  was  not  based 
upon  certain  clauses  of  the  Constitution,  but  on  the  nature  of 
the  Union — that  is  on  state  sovereignty. 

"On  this  basis  the  whole  argument  for  the  general,  as  well 
as  the  specific,  cases  can  be  condensed  into  four  short  sen- 
tences :  The  federal  government  has  only  the  powers  granted 
it  by  the  sovereign  States  ;  newly  admitted  States  become 
members  of  the  Union  with  equal  rights  ;  no  other  grants  of 
power  can  therefore  be  demanded  from  them  than  those  volun- 
tarily made  by  the  thirteen  original  States,  and  exactly  stipu- 
lated in  the  Constitution  ;  no  one  affirms  that  the  thirteen 
original  States  gave  up  the  right  to  decide  whether  slavery 
should  be  permitted  or  forbidden  within  their  boundaries." — 
Von  Hoist's  Constitutional  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  i.,  pp. 

364,  365. 

"  From  the  nature  of  the  Union,  then,  an  argument  was 
drawn  which  the  reasons  advanced  in  behalf  of  the  limitation 
shook,  but  could  not  overthrow.  Charles  Pinckney  affirmed 
with  great  keenness  that  the  Constitution  authorized  the  ad- 
mission of  new  States  '  into  this  Union,'  that  is,  into  the  Union 
as  it  then  was.  He  went  on  to  say  that  it  was  an  undeniable 
fact  that  the  rights  of  the  thirteen  original  States  under  the 
Constitution  had  been  absolutely  equal.  No  one  will  deny 
that  the  Constitution  could  never  have  come  into  being  if  this 
had  not  been  the  case.  It  is  therefore  no  longer  this,  but  a 
substantially  different,  Union,  if  the  members  of  it  are  to  have 
different  rights.  That  the  thirteen  original  States  had  and 
have  to-day  the  right  to  forbid  or  allow  slavery,  will  not  be 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY.  363 

questioned.  If  this  right  is  taken  away  from  newly-admitted 
States,  then  the  Union  evidently  consists  no  longer  of  equal 
members.  But  if  Congress  has  the  power  to  deprive  newly- 
admitted  States,  of  a  substantial  right  belonging  to  the 
original  States,  it  can  do  the  same  thing  with  other  rights.  No 
boundary  can  be  drawn,  if  the  principle  is  once  admitted." — 
Von  Hoist's  Constitutional  History  of  the  U.  S.t  vol.  i.,  pp. 
368,  369. 

"But  the  two  great  speeches  which  stood  out  before  all 
others,  and  were  regarded  as  masterpieces  of  their  kind,  were 
delivered,  the  one  in  defence  of  slavery  and  the  South,  by 
William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  and  the  other  on  behalf  of 
freedom  and  the  North,  by  Rufus  King,  of  New  York." — 
MacMaster's  U.  S.  History,  vol.  iv.,  p.  587. 

"  The  most  eloquent  and  distinguished  man  of  his  day  in 
the  United  States,  if  we  may  credit  his  contemporaries,  was 
Mr.  Pinkney,  of  Maryland.  His  fame  has  descended  to  us  in 
its  fulness  of  glory  as  an  orator,  statesman,  and  advocate. 

"  He  was,  at  the  time  of  his  sudden  and  premature  death,  a 
member  of  the  United  States  Senate,  and  admitted  to  be  there 
unrivalled  in  the  power  and  beauty  of  his  forensic  efforts.  But 
he  spoke  rarely  in  that  body,  only  on  some  important  occasion 
or  question,  and  then  only  after  the  most  laborious  and  thor- 
ough preparation,  not  merely  in  regard  to  the  arguments  and 
illustrations,  but  in  the  general  construction  of  his  speech,  and 
especially  in  the  preparation  of  those  passages,  including  the 
peroration,  which  were  intended  to  electrify  his  audience. 

"  That  Mr.  Pinkney  ranked  as  first  at  the  bar  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  composed  of  such  distinguished  lawyers  as  David 
B.  Ogden,  John  Wells,  Josiah  Ogden  Hoffman,  and  Thomas 
Addis  Emmet,  of  New  York,  Daniel  Webster,  of  Massachu- 
setts, Chapman  Johnson,  of  Virginia,  William  Wirt  and  Gen- 
eral Walter  Jones,  of  Washington,  and  others  of  similar 
calibre,  is  sufficient  evidence  of  his  great  ability  as  a  jurist 


364  NOTES. 

and  his  extraordinary  powers  as  a  speaker.  His  arguments 
before  that  tribunal  where  sat  a  Story,  a  Johnson,  a  Living- 
ston, and  a  Washington,  presided  over  by  a  Marshall,  were 
learned,  logical,  compact,  and  strong  ;  but,  not  content  with 
strength  and  solidity,  he  took  infinite  pains  to  make  them 
attractive  and  more  effective  by  the  more  elaborate  orna- 
mentation. He  well  knew  the  effect  of  glowing  passages  of 
eloquence,  even  in  a  solid  legal  argument, — diamonds  set  in 
gold, — upon  a  promiscuous,  or  even  a  select,  intelligent,  and 
refined  audience.  Nor  did  he  undervalue  those  echoes  of  ad- 
miration which  his  electric  oratory  sometimes,  indeed,  almost 
invariably,  called  forth  ;  they  were  delicious  music  to  his  ear. 

"It  is  related  of  Mr.  Pinkney  that  he  was  very  desirous 
that  the  splendid  passages  in  his  speeches,  which  he  took  so 
much  pains  to  prepare,  should  be  thought  to  be  the  impromtu 
inspirations  of  his  genius,  and  not  the  studied  productions  of 
midnight  toil ;  and  that  to  give  the  appearance  of  this,  he 
would  sometimes  resort  to  the  ruse,  on  the  morning  of  the 
day  he  was  to  speak  in  the  Senate  or  Supreme  Court,  of 
mounting  a  horse,  riding  some  miles  into  the  country,  return- 
ing and  entering  the  Senate  or  court,  whip  in  hand,  booted 
and  spurred,  with  the  appearance  of  haste,  just  at  the  moment 
he  was  expected  to  rise  and  speak,  as  if  he  had  forgotten  that 
he  was  expected  to  occupy  the  floor,  and  had  come  wholly  un- 
prepared, and  at  once  go  on  with  his  splendid  display  of 
oratorical  power  fragrant  with  the  oil  of  the  midnight  lamp. 

"  On  the  great  Missouri  question,  Mr.  Pinkney  took  the 
lead  in  the  Senate  in  favor  of  the  Compromise,  opposed  to 
Rufus  King,  who  led  the  opposition  to  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri as  a  slave  State.  His  speech  on  that  occasion  was  one 
of  the  greatest  efforts  of  his  legislative  life  ;  but  another, 
which  he  made  many  years  before,  denouncing  slavery  and 
slave-holders  for  maintaining  it,  was  the  best  answer  to  it. 

14  Mr.  Pinkney  had  a  very  extensive  and  lucrative  business 


WILLIAM  PINKNEY.  365 

before  the  Supreme  Court, — greater  than  that  of  any  other 
member  of  that  bar — which  demanded  so  much  of  his  time 
and  labor  that  he  had  little  to  spare  for  the  Senate.  And 
this  was  somewhat  singular,  as  he  had  spent  many  years,  from 
1796  to  1811,  as  Minister  at  different  times,  to  England,  and 
in  1818  to  Russia  and  Naples. 

"  His  biographer  and  nephew  speaks  of  the  'punctilious 
and  studious  attention  to  dress,  which  he  acquired  in  foreign 
courts,  and  which  he  retained  to  the  close  of  his  life.'  He 
was  not  less  distinguished  for  his  exquisite  taste  in  dress,  the 
faultless  cut  of  his  garments,  the  delicate  tint  of  his  gloves, 
the  gossamer  fineness  of  his  ruffles  and  pocket-handkerchiefs, 
— in  short,  for  the  high  fashion  and  fine  material  of  his  cos- 
tume,— than  he  was  as  an  eminent  lawyer,  able  statesman,  and 
refined  gentleman. 

"  His  death  was  startlingly  sudden  ;  but,  in  the  words  of 
his  biographer,  '  he  fell  in  his  might,  before  the  tribunal  he 
delighted  to  address,  and  on  the  arena  he  most  loved  to  tread.'  " 
— Sargent's  Public  Men  and  Events \  vol.  i.,  pp.  33-35. 

"There  he  made  his  immortal  speech  on  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  the  greatest  speech  ever  delivered  in  the  United 
States  Senate.  Governor  Burton,  of  North  Carolina,  gave 
me  an  account  of  this  speech  forty  years  since.  He  said  he 
(Burton)  was  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives in  Congress.  There  was  great  anxiety  to  hear 
Pinkney,  and  the  Senate  chamber  and  galleries  were  crowded 
to  excess.  Governor  Burton  sat  down  on  the  carpet,  the  only 
seat  he  could  get.  He  said  the  first  part  of  Pinkney's  speech 
was  entirely  rhetorical  and  fanciful,  and  he  thought  to  himself 
what  a  fool  he  was  to  be  sitting  in  the  middle  of  the  Senate 
Chamber  on  the  carpet  listening  to  such  a  speech.  But  soon 
afterwards  Pinkney  entered  into  the  argument  of  the  case,  and 
he  was  thrilled  and  overwhelmed  by  his  logic  and  eloquence." 
— From  Governor  Perry's  Sketches  of  Eminent  Americans. 


366  NOTES. 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

I.  Wendell  Phillips  was  born  in  Boston,  Mass.,  Nov.  29, 
1811.  He  was  educated  in  the  Boston  Latin  School  and  at 
Harvard  University,  graduating  from  Harvard  in  1831.  He 
was  noted  in  college  for  his  skill  in  elocution  and  debate, 
though  he  gave  no  indication  of  the  spirit  of  a  reformer.  As 
a  student  he  was  particularly  fond  of  history,  and  he  gave 
special  attention  in  his  reading  to  the  history  of  the  English 
and  American  revolutions.  After  a  course  in  the  Harvard 
Law  School  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1834.  He  was 
said  to  have  been  well  equipped  for  the  profession  of  the  law 
in  all  respects  save  one, — that  was,  he  had  no  love  for  the 
law,  and  no  ambition  for  success  at  the  bar.  The  exception 
was  decisive,  and  the  clients  which  he  waited  for  did  not 
come.  He  had  said  that  if  no  clients  came  he  would  throw 
himself  "  heart  and  soul  into  some  good  cause,"  and  devote 
his  life  to  it.  The  "  cause"  came  in  the  claim  of  the  slave. 
The  incident  which  won  Phillips  to  the  anti-slavery  cause 
occurred  on  October  21,  1835,  when,  looking  from  his  office 
window,  he  saw  a  "respectable  mob"  dragging  Garrison 
through  the  street  with  a  rope  around  his  waist.  Garrison 
was  rescued  from  a  violent  death  only  by  the  Mayor's  locking 
him  in  jail  for  safety.  From  that  day  Phillips  was  an  abo- 
litionist. The  speech  on  Lovejoy,  two  years  later,  brought 
Phillips  into  public  notice,  and  from  then  until  the  end  of  the 
slavery  conflict  he  devoted  his  talents  and  eloquence  to  the 
anti-slavery  cause.  He  became  a  follower  and  co-worker 
of  Garrison,  holding  that  all  slavery  was  a  sin,  that  emancipa- 
tion was  an  immediate  duty,  that  colonization  was  a  delusion, 
and  he  combated  and  denounced  the  statesmanship  which 
sought  to  suppress  the  agitation,  and  he  urged  that  slavery 
and  liberty  could  not  be  at  peace  under  the  same  government. 
With  the  other  Garrisonians,  he  regarded  the  slavery  com- 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  367 

promises  of  the  Constitution  as  immoral  and  not  binding  on 
the  conscience  ;  that  no  power  of  civil  government  should  be 
used  in  support  of  slavery. 

In  1864  Phillips  opposed  the  re-election  of  Lincoln,  and  his 
criticisms  of  Lincoln  were  among  his  severest  utterances. 
They  were  caused  by  what  Phillips  considered  the  President's 
recreant  conservatism.  In  1865  he  separated  from  Garrison, 
opposing,  while  Garrison  favored,  the  dissolution  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society.  In  the  later  years  of  his  life 
Phillips  devoted  his  talents  to  the  Labor  Movement,  Temper- 
ance Reform,  and  other  measures  of  a  radical  character.  He 
became  the  Labor  candidate  for  Governor  of  Massachusetts  in 
1870.  He  died  on  February  2,  1884. 

One  of  the  most  noted  orations  of  the  later  years  of  Phil- 
lips' life  was  his  address  before  the  Harvard  Chapter  of  the 
Phi  Beta  Kappa,  on  "  The  Scholar  in  the  Republic." 

2.  Historical  Note. 

On  November  7,  1837,  Rev.  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy  was  shot  by 
a  pro-slavery  mob  at  Alton,  Illinois,  while  attempting,  under 
sanction  of  police  powers,  to  defend  his  printing-press  from 
destruction.  When  the  news  of  this  reached  Boston,  William 
Ellery  Channing  headed  a  petition  to  the  Mayor  and  Alder- 
men, asking  the  use  of  Faneuil  Hall  for  a  public  meeting. 
The  hall  was  refused.  Dr.  Channing  then  wrote  a  strong 
public  letter  to  his  fellow-citizens,  which  resulted  in  a  meet- 
ing in  the  old  Court  Room.  Resolutions  were  here  drawn  up, 
and  measures  were  taken  to  secure  a  larger  number  of  names 
to  the  petition  for  Faneuil  Hall.  The  request  for  the  use  of 
the  Hall  was  then  granted.  The  meeting  was  held  on  the  8th 
of  December,  and  organized  with  Hon.  Jonathan  Phillips,  a 
friend  of  Channing  and  a  kinsman  of  Wendell  Phillips,  as 
chairman.  Dr.  Channing  made  a  brief  and  eloquent  address. 
Resolutions  drawn  by  him  were  read  by  Hon.  Benjamin  F. 


368  NOTES. 

Hallet,  and  were  seconded  in  a  forcible  speech  by  George  S. 
Hillard.  At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Hillard's  speech,  the  At- 
torney General  of  Massachusetts,  Hon.  James  T.  Austin,  was 
seen  elbowing  his  way  toward  the  great  gilded  eagle  in  the 
gallery  over  the  main  entrance  with  the  evident  purpose  of 
making  a  speech  not  on  the  program.  Dr.  Carlos  Marty n, 
in  his  Life  of  Phillips,  says  :  "  He  at  once,  with  practiced 
skill,  began  an  harangue,  clearly  intended  and  adroitly 
adapted  either  to  break  up  the  meeting  in  a  row,  or  array  it 
against  the  objects  of  its  callers.  He  claimed  that  there  was 
'  a  conflict  of  laws  '  between  Missouri  and  Illinois  ;  compared 
the  slaves  to  a  menagerie,  with  lions,  tigers,  a  hyena,  an  ele- 
phant, and  monkeys  in  plenty,  and  compared  Lovejoy  to  one 
who  would  break  the  bars  and  let  loose  the  caravan  to  prowl 
about  the  streets  ;  talked  of  the  rioters  of  Alton  as  akin  to  the 
'  orderly  mob '  which  threw  the  tea  into  Boston  Harbor  in 
1773,  and  declared  that  Lovejoy  was  'presumptuous'  and 
'  impudent,'  and  had  '  died  as  the  fool  dieth  ; '  and,  in  direct 
and  insulting  allusion  to  Dr.  Channing,  closed  by  asserting 
that  a  clergyman  with  a  gun  in  his  hand,  or  one  mingling  in 
the  debates  of  a  popular  assembly,  was  marvellously  out  of 
place." 

This  speech  produced  great  excitement  throughout  the 
Hall.  Austin  was  not  without  numerous  supporters.  Proba- 
bly one  third  of  the  audience  had  come  with  intentions  of 
positive  hostility  toward  the  object  of  the  meeting.  Another 
third  were  curious  onlookers  who  yet  were  bent  on  fair  play, 
and  free  speech.  For  an  eloquent  description  of  the  scene 
and  Phillips'  attitude,  see  George  William  Curtis'  speech  on 
Phillips,  vol.  iii. ,  Orations  and  Addresses. 

3.  After  the  destruction  of  his  second  press,  Lovejoy  had 
appealed  to  the  Mayor  of  Alton  for  protection.  This  officer 
said  that  he  had  no  police  force.  Lovejoy  replied  :  "  Very 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  369 

well,  I  will  get  another  press,  and  with  your  consent  I  will  en- 
roll a  special  police  force  in  the  interest  of  law  and  order." 
The  Mayor  assented  to  this.  Lovejoy  was  thus  standing  on 
his  legal  rights. 

4.  "In  the  annals  of  American  speech,  there  had  been  no 
such  scene  since  Patrick  Henry's  electrical  warning  to  George 
III.     It  was  the  greatest  of  oratorical  triumphs,  when  a  su- 
preme emotion,  a  sentiment  which  is  to  mould  a  people  anew, 
lifted  the  orator  to  adequate  expression.     Three  such  scenes 
are  illustrious  in  our  history.     That  of  the  speech  of  Patrick 
Henry  at  Williamsburg,  of  Wendell  Phillips  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
of  Abraham  Lincoln  in  Gettysburg, — three  and  there  is  no 
fourth.     They  transmit,  unextinguished,  the  torch  of  an  elo- 
quence which  has  aroused  nations  and  changed  the  course  of 
history,  and  which  Webster  called  '  noble,  sublime,  god-like 
action.'" — George  William  Curtis,  Oration  on  Phillips,  vol. 
iii.,  pp.   280-281,    Curtis'  Orations.     The  whole  of   Curtis' 
oration  on  Phillips  should  be  read  in  connection  with  this 
speech  of  Phillips. 

5.  The  omitted  paragraph  refers  to  the  excuse  which  had 
been  made  for  the  Alton  mob  on  the  ground  that  there  was  a 
"conflict  of  laws  "between  Missouri  and  Illinois.     Phillips 
asserted  that  no  lawyer  would  make  such  a  plea  or  affect  to 
believe  that  the  laws  of  the  two  States  were  really  in  conflict 
in  the  case  at  hand.     And  if  they  were  how  could  Missouri 
extend  her  jurisdiction  over  Illinois  ?     ' '  The  Czar  might  as 
well  claim  to  control  the  deliberations  of  Faneuil  Hall." 

6.  Referring  to  the  men  who  fell  in  the  "  Boston  massacre" 
before  the  British  troops. 

7.  Rev.  Hubbard  Winslow  in  his  discourse  on  "Liberty" 
defined  liberty  to  be  "  liberty  to  say  and  do  what  the  prevail- 

VOL.   II. — 2J 


370  NOTES. 

ing  voice  and  will  of  the  brotherhood  will  allow  and  protect." 
See  Phillips'  Addresses,  vol.  i. 

8.  Hugh  Peters,  born  in   Cornwall,   England,  in  1598,  in 
1635  emigrated  to  Boston,  and  became  minister  to  the  Salem 
Church  in  1636.     In  1641  he  became  the  agent  of  the  Colony 
in  England,  and  later  filled  important  offices  under  Cromwell. 
After  the  Restoration,   in    1660,   he  was   imprisoned  in  the 
Tower,  was  tried  and  convicted  as  an  accomplice  in  the  death 
of  Charles  I.     He  was  hung  at  Charing  Cross,  October   17, 
1660.     Peters  was  one  of  the  most  pronounced  of  Puritan  re- 
publicans.— Century  Cyclopedia  of  Names. 

Cotton  was  a  Puritan  minister  of  the  time  and  type  of 
Peters. 

9.  Bold  and  active  Puritan  ministers  of  the  previous  cen- 
tury. 

10.  "When  the  whirlwind  of  applause  which  followed  the 
orator's  conclusion  had  rolled  away,  the  Chairman  put  the 
resolutions,  and  they  were  carried  by  an  overwhelming  vote. 
Thus  was  defeat  turned  into  victory  by  the  genius  of  Phillips, 
as,  years  afterwards,   that  other  defeat  at  Winchester   was 
turned  into  victory  by  the  magnetism  of  Sheridan." — Martyn's 
Life  of  Phillips,  p.  101. 

Oliver  Johnson,  who  was  one  of  Mr.  Phillips'  auditors 
that  morning,  remarks  : 

"I  had  heard  him  once  before  (in  his  first  Anti-Slavery 
speech  at  Lynn),  as  a  few  others  in  that  great  meeting  proba- 
bly had,  and  my  expectations  were  high  ;  but  he  transcended 
them  all  and  took  the  audience  by  storm.  Never  before,  I 
venture  to  say,  did  the  walls  of  the  old  '  Cradle  of  Liberty ' 
echo  to  a  finer  strain  of  eloquence.  It  was  a  speech  to  which 
not  even  the  completest  report  could  do  justice,  for  such  a  re- 
port could  not  bring  the  scene  and  the  manner  of  the  speaker 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  371 

vividly  before  the  reader.  It  was  before  the  days  of  pho- 
nography, and  the  report  caught  only  a  pale  reflection  of  what 
fell  from  the  orator's  lips." — Johnson's  Garrison  and  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Movement^  p.  229. 

"  Wendell  Phillips  was  not  less  interested  than  Garrison  in 
the  emancipation  of  the  slave,  and  the  chief  efforts  of  his  life 
were  directed  toward  that  end.  But  he  was  by  nature  and  by 
art  an  orator,  even  more  than  a  reformer.  To  speak  was  his 
life  work.  As  Horace  Greeley  said,  '  Phillips  made  men  think 
it  was  easy  to  be  an  orator.'  He  did  not  put  the  form  before 
the  spirit  ;  he  was  no  mere  rhetorician,  hunting  for  a  cause 
whereon  to  display  his  eloquence  ;  but  he  would  have  spoken 
gracefully  and  strongly  upon  any  question  which  aroused  his 
interest.  So,  indeed,  he  did.  His  intellectual  equipment, 
and,  to  a  certain  extent  his  tastes,  were  academic  ;  like  Sum- 
ner  he  was  fond  of  classical  themes  and  allusions,  and  when 
occasion  demanded,  he  could  take  pleasure  in  mere  external 
finish.  Well  read  in  ancient  and  modern  literature,  a  mas- 
ter in  the  use  of  invective  and  epigram,  possessed  of  wit, 
which  both  Garrison  and  Sumner  lacked,  he  charmed  the  cul- 
tivated and  impressed  the  ignorant.  A  winsome  personal 
presence,  and  a  serene,  undisturbed  manner,  added  to  the 
attractiveness  of  his  words,  and  enabled  him  to  speak  before 
great  amdiences  of  enemies." — Richardson's  American  Litera~ 
ture,  vol.  i.,  pp.  250-251. 

References : 

Speeches  of  Wendell  Phillips  (Lee  and  Shepard). 

Martyn's  Life  of  Phillips. 

Schouler's  United  States  History,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  299-300. 

Oliver  Johnson's  Garrison  and  the  A  nti- Slavery  Movement \ 
p.  229. 

Niles'  Register,  53. 

Lowell's  Sonnet  to  Phillips. 


3/2  NOTES. 

Life  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  182-192. 

"  The  Martyr  Age,"  in  the  Westminster  Review,  1838. 

Memorial  Oration  on  Phillips,  by  George  William  Curtis, 
vol.  in.,  p.  279,  of  Curtis'  Orations. 

Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  vol. 
i.,  chap,  xxvii.,  pp.  374-389. 

Richardson's  American  Literature,  vol.  i. 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

I.  John  Quincy  Adams,  the  sixth  President  of  the  United 
States,  was  the  eldest  son  of  John  Adams,  the  second  Presi- 
dent. He  was  born  at  Braintree,  Mass.,  July  n,  1767.  He 
received,  under  his  father's  influence,  a  special  training  for 
diplomacy  and  statesmanship.  He  visited  Europe  with  his 
father  in  1778  and  again  in  1780,  attending  for  a  time  the 
University  of  Leyden.  After  some  time  spent  in  Holland,  Lon- 
don, and  Paris,  he  returned  home,  took  a  course  at  Harvard, 
and  graduated  from  that  institution  in  1788.  He  was  ad- 
mitted to  the  bar  in  1791.  Having  turned  his  attention  to 
politics  and  to  our  foreign  relations,  he  was  appointed  by 
Washington  as  ambassador  to  the  Hague.  By  Washington's 
advice,  President  Adams  sent  his  son  as  our  minister  to  Prus- 
sia, where  he  succeeded  in  negotiating  a  commercial  treaty. 
In  1801,  young  Adams  was  recalled  by  Jefferson  ;  in  1802,  he 
was  elected  to  the  Massachusetts  Senate,  and  in  1803,  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  He  was  elected  to  the  Senate  as 
a  Federalist,  and  it  may  be  considered  that  for  four  years  he 
was  an  adherent  of  that  party.  But  he  broke  with  the  Fed- 
eralists by  his  support  of  Jefferson's  Embargo  in  1807.  On 
account  of  this  disagreement  with  his  party  and  his  State 
Legislature,  he  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  and  from  1807 


JOHN   QUINCY  ADAMS.  373 

to  1809  he  was  professor  of  rhetoric  and  belles-lettres  in  Har- 
vard University.  In  1809,  Adams  was  appointed  by  President 
Madison  as  ambassador  to  Russia,  an  appointment  which  he 
accepted  against  the  wishes  of  his  father.  After  acting  as  one 
of  the  American  negotiators  in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  Adams 
served  two  years  (1815-17)  as  United  States  minister  at 
London,  when  he  returned  to  take  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  State  under  Monroe.  His  most  distinguished  service  in 
this  office  was  in  his  negotiation  of  the  treaty  by  which  we 
acquired  Florida  and  defined  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana.  He 
was  elected  president  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  upon 
the  failure  to  elect  of  the  Electoral  College.  He  was  defeated 
for  re-election  in  1828,  and  for  two  years  after  March  4,  1829 
he  lived  in  retirement  at  Quincy,  Mass.  In  1831  he  was 
elected  to  the  lower  house  of  Congress,  chiefly  on  account  of 
his  opposition  to  secret  societies.  During  his  Congressional 
career,  from  1831  to  1848,  he  was  independent  of  party,  and 
he  distinguished  himself  particularly  by  his  persistent  advocacy 
of  the  right  of  petition  and  his  opposition  to  the  "  gag  rule." 
He  was  not  one  of  the  Garrisonian  Abolitionists,  for  whom  he 
had  many  words  of  criticism,  but  his  services  to  the  anti-slav- 
ery cause  were  recognized,  notably  in  his  opposition  to  the  policy 
of  shutting  off  anti-slavery  petitions  and  discussions,  and  in  his 
opposition  to  the  annexation  of  Texas,  or  to  any  form  of  slav- 
ery extension.  He  died  from  a  paralytic  stroke,  falling  upon 
the  floor  of  the  House,  February  23,  1848,  and  his  last  re- 
ported words  were,  "  This  is  the  last  of  earth." 

2.  Historical  Note : 

The  abolition  agitation,  which  began  in  1830  and  1831,  gave 
rise  to  a  number  of  petitions  to  Congress  praying  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  for  other  con- 
stitutional restrictions  on  slavery.  For  some  time  these  were 
respectfully  referred  to  the  proper  committee,  which  regularly 


374  NOTES. 

reported  adversely.  As  the  petitions  became  more  numerous 
they  were  buried  in  committee  without  report.  By  1835  the 
temper  of  the  House  had  become  still  more  hostile,  and  the 
petitions  were  summarily  laid  on  the  table  without  being  re- 
ferred. Even  this,  however,  did  not  satisfy  the  Southern 
members,  and  on  February  8,  1836,  Mr.  Henry  L.  Pinckney 
of  South  Carolina,  moved  : 

1.  That  all  petitions  should  be   referred  to  a  select  com- 
mittee. 

2.  That  this  committee  be  instructed  to  report  that  Con- 
gress has  no  constitutional  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in 
the  States  ;  and, 

3.  That  Congress  ought  not  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

On  May  18,  1836,  the  Special  Committee  reported  accord- 
ing to  instructions,  and  it  added  another  resolution,  for  "  the 
purpose  of  arresting  agitation  and  restoring  tranquillity  to  the 
public  mind."  The  additional  resolution  was  the  first  of  the 
famous  "  gag  rules  "  of  Congress,  and  was  as  follows  :  "  That 
all  petitions,  memorials,  resolutions,  propositions,  or  papers 
relating  in  any  way  to  the  subject  of  slavery  shall,  without 
being  either  printed  or  referred,  be  laid  upon  the  table,  and 
that  no  further  action  whatever  shall  be  had  thereon."  On 
May  2$th,  these  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  application 
of  the  previous  question.  Mr.  Adams  appealed  for  an  oppor- 
tunity to  speak  upon  the  question  but  it  was  denied.  After  a 
protest  against  his  being  gagged,  and  a  parliamentary  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  it  was  decided  that  the  main 
question  should  be  put. 

' '  The  first  resolution  was  then  read  as  follows  : 
'  '  Resolved,  That    Congress    possesses    no    constitutional 
authority  to  interfere  in  anyway  with  the  institution  of  slavery 
in  any  of  the  States  of  this  confederacy.' 

"  Mr.  Adams  said,  if    the  House  would    allow    him   five 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS.  375 

minutes  time,  he  pledged  himself  to  prove  that  resolution  false 
and  utterly  untrue. 

"  Mr.  Adams  was  here  called  to  order  in  different  parts  of 
the  House  and  resumed  his  seat.  The  question  was  then 
taken  and  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  182  to  9."* 

Although  Mr.  Adams  was  denied  the  privilege  of  speaking 
on  this  resolution,  an  opportunity  occurred  on  the  same  day 
which  he  was  quick  to  improve.  A  joint  resolution  from  the 
Senate  came  up  in  the  House,  authorizing  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  cause  rations  to  be  distributed  to  suffer- 
ing fugitives  from  Indian  hostilities  in  Alabama  and  Georgia. 
This  resolution  seems  far  removed  from  the  subject  of  slavery 
and  the  right  of  petition,  but  Adams  made  it  the  occasion  of 
one  of  his  most  notable  speeches,  in  which  he  not  only  vindi- 
cated the  freedom  of  debate  in  the  House,  but  he  took  the 
position  that  Congress,  by  the  exercise  of  the  war  power  under 
the  Constitution  had  the  constitutional  authority  to  abolish 
slavery  within  the  States.  Among  the  constitutional  states- 
men of  his  day  Adams  stood  alone,  so  far  as  we  know,  in  ad- 
vocacy of  this  doctrine  ;  but  his  theory  was  remembered  by 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  advisers  in  1861-65,  and  it  may  be  said 
that  the  constitutional  power  of  emancipation  as  a  war  measure 
was  based  upon  the  doctrine  here  enunciated  by  John  Quincy 
Adams. 

3.  James    K.   Polk,    of    Tennessee,  was    Speaker    of   the 
House. 

4.  Adams  heie  refers  to  the  great  latitude  in  discussion 
which  had  been  allowed  in  the  Committee  of   the  Whole, 
noticing  an  altercation  on  an  irrelevant  matter  between  two 
members  from  Maryland.     This  discussion  about  the  laws  and 
constitution  of  Maryland  had  occupied  hours  without  interrup- 
tion or  call  to  order. 

*  Congressional  Debates,  vol.  xii.,  part  iv.,  p.  4031. 


376  NOTES. 

5.  This  constitutional  position  with  reference  to  the  power 
of  Congress  over  slavery  within  the  States  was  one  very 
generally  accepted  by  the  country.  It  had  been  announced 
by  the  first  Congress,  March  23,  1790,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
presentation  of  a  memorial  from  the  Society  of  Friends,  of 
Philadelphia.  It  was  assented  to  by  Webster  in  his  reply  to 
Hayne,  and  even  the  Liberty  Party  men  of  1840  and  1844, 
and  the  Free  Soilers  of  1848,  did  not  combat  this  constitu- 
tional interpretation.  It  was  from  a  feeling  that  this  was  a 
true  exposition  of  the  Constitution  that  Garrison  and  his  fol- 
lowers denounced  that  instrument  as  "  a  covenant  with  death 
and  a  league  with  hell."  John  Quincy  Adams'  position  was 
unique  in  his  time,  and  this  makes  his  speech  of  special  his- 
torical interest. 

6.,  The  final  portions  of  this  speech  are  devoted  to  the 
dangers  of  war  with  Mexico  and  to  the  resistance  of  Georgia 
to  the  authority  of  the  National  Government. 

See  Gales  and  Seaton's  Register  of  Congressional  Debates, 
vol.  xii.,  part  iv.,  p.  4035. 


JOHN   C.  CALHOUN. 

1.  For  sketch  of  Calhoun,  see  vol.  i.,  Notes,  p.  393. 

2.  Historical  Note  on  the  Compromise  of  1850. 

The  situation  in  1850  may  be  briefly  indicated  as  follows  : 

California  was  applying  for  admission  with  a  free  constitu- 
tion, without  the  preliminary  of  a  territorial  organization,  or 
an  enabling  act,  by  Congress. 

There  were  claims  and  denials  as  to  the  boundaries  of 
Texas. 

There  were  complaints  on  the  part  of  Southerners  about 


JOHN  C.   CALHOUN.  377 

escaping  slaves,  aided  and  abetted  in  the  North,  with  threats 
of  disunion. 

There  was  continued  and  persistent  agitation  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  and  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
and  for  congressional  restriction  of  the  inter-State  slave 
trade. 

The  great  issue  was  still  unsettled  as  to  whether  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  should  be  applied  to  the  territory  acquired  from 
Mexico.  What  should  be  the  status  of  this  Territory  as  to 
slavery  ?  This  was  the  territorial  question. 

Of  all  these  questions  and  disturbances  the  territorial  ques- 
tion was  probably  the  most  important  and  the  most  difficult 
of  settlement.  The  question  had  been  prominently  and  hotly 
discussed  ever  since  it  became  known  that  the  United  States 
would  receive  new  territory  from  the  Mexican  War.*  Of  this 
question  there  were  four  distinct  possible  solutions  : 

1.  By  the   application    of   the   Wilmot  Proviso :    Slavery 
should   be   excluded  from   the  Territories  by  Congressional 
power. 

2.  By  the  application  of  the  doctrine  of  Calhoun  :  slaves 
are  property  and  it  is    the  bounden    duty    of  Congress    to 
protect  the  rights  of  the  slave-holder  within  the  Territory, 
the  same  as  the  law  protected  other  property.     Congressional 
power  over  the  Territories  was  positive  and  absolute,  and  this 
power  could  be  exercised  to  protect  slavery  but  not  to  exclude 
it. 

3.  By  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line.     This,  it  was  held, 
would  be  an  equitable  division  of  the  territory  between  the 
two  sections. 

4.  By  the  principle  of  "popular  sovereignty."     Leave  the 
question  to  be  settled  by  the  settlers.     Each  of  these  solutions 

*  See  p.  382,  Note  4,  and  Speeches  of  Calhoun  and  Webster 
on  Oregon  Question. 


378  NOTES. 

had  its  earnest  advocates,  and  there  were  prominent  threats  of 
disunion  in  the  emergency  of  disappointment. 

The  territorial  question,  i.e.,  the  status  of  the  Territories  as 
to  slavery,  is  the  subject  which  gave  historic  interest  to  the 
Oregon  debate.  The  issue  had  been  then  warmly  contested, 
and,  as  for  all  territory  except  Oregon,  it  had  been  left  unset- 
tled. After  weeks  of  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  organization 
of  Oregon,  the  bill  for  that  purpose  was  referred  to  a  special 
committee  with  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  as  chairman.  This 
Committee  reported  a  bill  providing  a  territorial  government 
for  Oregon,  New  Mexico,  and  California.  This  bill  pro- 
hibited slavery  in  Oregon,  but  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
Constitution  permitted  slavery  in  New  Mexico  and  California 
was  to  be  referred  to  the  Territorial  Courts  with  the  right  of 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  This 
foreshadows  the  Dred  Scott  Decision.  Thomas  Corwin,  a 
Senator  from  Ohio,  remarked,  with  caustic  wit,  that  this  bill 
proposed  "  not  to  enact  a  law  but  only  to  enact  a  law  suit." 

It  was  in  the  same  debate  on  the  Oregon  bill  that  Senator 
Douglas,  of  Illinois,  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  bill  ex- 
tending the  Missouri  line  to  the  Pacific.  The  purpose  of  this 
amendment  was  clear.  The  Missouri  line  applied  only  to  the 
Louisiana  purchase.  Oregon  was  not  a  part  of  this  purchase  ; 
neither  were  New  Mexico  and  California,  recently  acquired 
from  Mexico.  The  slavery  extensionists  did  not  hope  to  secure 
a  footing  for  slavery  in  Oregon.  Their  design  in  this  amend- 
ment was  well  expressed  by  Webster.  "  The  truth  is,"  said 
he,  "  this  is  an  amendment  by  which  the  Senate  wishes  to  have 
now  a  public  legal  declaration  not  respecting  Oregon,  but 
respecting  the  newly  acquired  territories  of  California  and 
New  Mexico.  It  wishes  now  to  make  a  line  of  slavery  which 
shall  include  those  two  territories."  That  is,  while  the  restric- 
tionists  were  to  be  allowed  a  sure  thing  on  Oregon,  all  effort 
on  their  part  for  restriction  in  New  Mexico  and  California  was 


JOHN  C.    CALHOUN.  379 

to  be  forestalled.     The  extensionists  would  thus  make  sure  of 
slavery  in  the  Mexican  cessions. 

One  other  point.  By  the  law  of  New  Mexico  and  California 
existing  before  they  were  detached  from  Mexico,  these  Terri- 
tories were  free.  By  the  law  of  nations  it  is  the  rule  that  the 
law  in  a  territory  coming  to  a  nation  by  conquest  or  purchase, 
remains  until  changed  by  the  new  owner.  The  restrictionists, 
therefore,  claimed  that  there  was  an  express  law  prohibiting 
slavery  in  California  and  New  Mexico  until  we  ourselves  should 
change  it.  On  this  point  Calhoun  contended  that,  immedi- 
ately the  treaty  was  made,  the  Constitution  superseded  the 
laws  of  Mexico  in  the  transferred  territory  and  legalized  and 
protected  slavery  there.  Benton  called  this  Calhoun's  ' '  dogma 
of  the  transmigratory  function  of  the  Constitution,  and  the 
instantaneous  transportation  of  itself  in  its  slavery  attributes 
into  all  acquired  territories."  Thus  there  was  doubt  and  dis- 
pute as  to  what  was  the  law  of  the  Territories  and  as  to  the 
status  of  the  master  with  his  slave.  After  the  Oregon  discus- 
sion  the  proposition  to  extend  the  Missouri  line  to  the  Pacific, 
while  still  urged  by  some,  was  not  so  prominently  considered, 
and  the  contention  may  be  said  to  have  been  simplified  by 
1850  to  three  proposals  : 

1.  Extension  under  Federal  protection. 

2.  Restriction  by  Federal  power. 

3.  Non-intervention. 

In  the  midst  of  the  difficulties  and  contentions  Clay  brought 
forth  his  plan  "  to  secure  the  peace,  concord,  and  harmony  of 
the  Union,  to  adjust  amicably  all  questions  of  controversy  be- 
tween the  States  arising  out  of  the  institution  of  slavery,  upon 
a  fair  equality  and  just  basis."  Clay's  resolutions  urged  the 
following : 

1.  The  admission  of  California  free. 

2.  As  slavery  does  not  exist  by  law  and  is  not  likely  to  be 
introduced  into  any  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico  it  is 


380  NOTES. 

inexpedient  for  Congress  to  provide  by  law,  either  for  its  intro- 
duction into,  or  its  exclusion  from  any  part  of  that  Territory, 
and  that  territorial  governments  should  be  established  for  those 
Territories  without  restriction  as  to  slavery. 

3.  The  determination  of  the  Texan  boundary. 

4.  That  the  United  States  should  provide  for  the  payment 
of  the  public  debt  of  Texas  contracted  prior  to  annexation, 
for  which  Texas  was  to  relinquish  her  claim  to  any  part  of 
New  Mexico. 

5.  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  while   that  institution  existed  in  Maryland,  with- 
out the  consent  of  that  State,  without  the  consent  of  the  people 
of  the  District,  and  without  just  compensation  to  the  owners  of 
the  slaves. 

6.  That  it  is  expedient  to  prohibit  the  slave  trade  within  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

7.  That  more  effectual  provision  should  be  made  for  the 
rendition  of  fugitive  slaves. 

8.  That  Congress  has  no  power  to  prohibit  or  obstruct  the 
inter-State  slave  trade. 

These  proposals  of  Clay  were  debated  in  the  Senate  for  two 
months,  when  they  were  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  thir- 
teen of  which  Mr.  Clay  was  chosen  chairman.  On  May  8th 
this  Committee  reported  three  distinct  bills  : 

1.  The  so-called  "  Omnibus  Bill,"  carrying, 
(a)  the  admission  of  California  ; 

(3)  the  organization  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  as  Terri- 
tories without  restriction  as  to  slavery  ; 

(c)  the  adjustment  of  the  Texas  boundary  line,  and  the 
payment  of  $10,000,000  to  Texas  as  an  indemnity  for 
her  claim  on  New  Mexico. 

2.  A  stringent  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

3-  A  bill  prohibiting  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 


JOHN  C.   CALHOUN.  381 

The  *'  Omnibus  Bill"  having  been  taken  up  was  so  re- 
peatedly amended  that  finally  nothing  was  left  of  it  except  a 
provision  for  a  territorial  government  for  Utah.  It  passed  the 
Senate  in  this  shape  on  July  3ist.  Each  of  the  measures  of  the 
"  Omnibus  Bill "  might  have  carried  a  majority  but  it  became 
evident  that  all  combined  in  one  could  not.  While  the  combined 
bill  failed,  its  separate  measures  went  through  one  by  one. 

A  bill  fixing  the  Texas  boundary,  with  the  $10,000,000  in- 
demnity for  Texas  was  passed  on  August  gth.  The  Senate 
was  spurred  to  this  by  the  avowed  intention  of  the  Governor 
and  legislature  of  Texas  to  occupy  the  disputed  territory. 

The  bill  for  the  admission  of  California  passed  the  Senate 
on  the  1 3th  of  August.  Ten  Southern  senators  thereupon 
signed  a  protest  against  the  broken  equilibrium. 

The  bill  establishing  a  territorial  government  for  New 
Mexico  passed  the  Senate  on  the  isth  of  August.  It  provided 
that  the  Territory  might  be  subdivided  at  any  time  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  Congress,  and  that  any  State  formed  out  of  the  Terri- 
tory should  be  admitted  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery 
as  her  Constitution  should  then  prescribe.  Chase  had  moved 
an  amendment  applying  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  this  territory, 
but  it  was  rejected. 

The  Fugitive  Slave  Law  passed  on  August  26th,  by  a  vote  of 
more  than  two  to  one. 

All  these  bills  passed  the  House  and  became  laws  by  the  signa- 
ture of  President  Fillmore,  by  September  i8th,  and  two  days 
later  a  bill  became  a  law  suppressing  the  slave  trade  in  the  Dis- 
trict. Thus  all  the  measures  proposed  by  Clay  in  January  were 
secured  before  the  adjournment  of  Congress  on  September  30, 
1850. 

For  further  historical  information  on  this  period,  consult 
Rhodes'  United  States  History  since  i8$o  ;  Schouler's  United 
States  History,  vol  v.  ;  Wilson's  Division  and  Reunion;  "  The 
Anti-Slavery  Struggle,"  pp.  16-21  of  this  volume. 


382  NOTES. 

In  special  reference  to  Calhoun's  speech,  note  the  following : 

Jenkins'  Life  of  Calhoun,  pp.3i3~44O. 

Schouler's  United  States  History,  vol.  v.,  pp.  157-166. 

Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.,  pp. 
238-240. 

Von  Hoist's  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States, 
vol.  1846-1850,  pp.  474-496. 

Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View. 

Stephens'  War  between  the  States,  vol  ii.,  pp.  196-211. 

Von  Hoist's  Calhoun,  pp.  335-352. 

Schurz'  Clay,  vol  ii.,  pp.  31 5-339- 

Wilson's  Division  and  Reunion,  pp.  168-174. 

Seward's  Works,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  15-30^^. 

Calhoun's  Works. 

3.  He  refers  to  California,  New  Mexico,  and  Utah,  terri- 
torial organizations  for  which  had  been  under  discussion. 

4.  "To  exclude  the  South"  meant  to  Calhoun's  mind,  to 
exclude  slavery.     Webster,  in  his  speech  on  the  Oregon  bill, 
very  effectively  answers   this  view.     He  says  :  "  Gentlemen 
say  we  deprive  them  of  participation  in  Territories  acquired 
by  common  service  and  common  exertions.     How   deprive? 
Of  what  do  we  deprive  them  ?     Of  the  privilege  of  carrying 
their  slaves  to  the  new  Territory.     They  say  we  deprive  them 
of  the  privilege  of  going  into  this  Territory  with  their  '  prop- 
erty.'    What  do  they  mean  by  'property.'     We  certainly  do 
not  deprive  them  of  the  privilege  of  going  into  these  new 
Territories  with  all  that  in  the  general  estimate  of  human 
society,  in  the  general  and  common  and  universal  estimate  of 
mankind,  is  esteemed   property.     They  have  in  their  States 
peculiar  laws  which  create  property  in  persons,  while  everybody 
agrees  that  it  is  against  natural  law.     They  mean,  then,  that 
they  cannot  go  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  carry- 
ing their  own  peculiar  local  law  which  creates   property   in 


JOHN  C.    CALHOUN.  383 

persons.  This  is  all  the  ground  of  complaint  they  have.  c  .  . 
The  demand  of  the  South  goes  upon  the  idea  that  there  is  an 
inequality  unless  persons  under  this  local  law,  holding  property 
by  the  authority  of  that  law,  can  go  into  new  territory  and 
there  establish  that  local  law  to  the  exclusion  of  the  general 
law.  All  the  Southern  people  may  go  into  the  new  Territory. 
The  only  restraint  is  they  may  not  carry  slaves  there  and 
continue  the  relation.  They  say  this  shuts  them  out  altogether. 
There  can  be  nothing  more  inaccurate  in  point  of  fact  than 
this  statement.  Who  settled  Illinois  ?  Who  settled  Indiana  ? 
Immigrants  from  Kentucky,  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and  the 
Carolinas,  equally  and  with  equal  privileges  with  all  other 
sections." — Speech  on  the  Oregon  Bill,  Aug.  12,  1848. 

Webster  concluded  his  Oregon  speech  with  the  assertion 
that  he  would  stand  "  for  the  absolute  power  of  Congress 
over  the  Territories." 

5.  The  preservation  of  this  political  equilibrium  between  the 
slave  States  and  the  free  had  for  some  time  been  considered 
essential  by  the  Southern  section.  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Vir- 
ginia, in  referring  to  the  Texas  question  and  further  acquisi- 
tions in  the  southwest,  said,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
on  January  26,  1842  : 

"  True,  if  Iowa  be  added  on  the  one  side  Florida  will  be 
added  on  the  other.  But  there  the  equation  must  stop.  Let 
one  more  northern  State  be  admitted  and  the  equilibrium  is 
gone,  and  gone  forever.  The  balance  of  interests  is  gone — 
the  safeguard  of  American  property,  of  the  American  Con- 
stitution, of  the  American  Union  vanished  into  thin  air. 
This  must  be  the  inevitable  result,  unless  by  a  treaty  with 
Mexico,  the  South  can  add  more  weight  to  her  end  of  the 
lever.  Let  the  South  stop  at  the  Sabine  while  the  North  may 
spread  unchecked  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the  South- 
ern scale  must  kick  the  beam."  See  Seward's  speech  of 


384  NOTES. 

March  II,   1850,  in  response  to  the  idea  of  preserving  the 
equilibrium,  Seward's  Works. 

6.  He  refers  to  Minnesota,  a  part  of  which  was  within  the 
Northwest  Territory. 

7.  Calhoun's  Constitutional  doctrine  was  that  the  Constitu- 
tion protected  slavery  in  the  Territories.      A  congressional 
prohibition  on  slavery  there  was  unconstitutional,  and  before 
such  prohibition  was  begun  this  territory  was  the  possession 
of  the  Slave  States  and  open  to  the  introduction  of  their  pecu- 
liar institution.    He  considers  that  the  restriction  had  deprived 
the  South  of  its  common  possession.     Compare  his  opinion 
on  this  subject  in  1850  with  that  of  1820. — See  Von  Hoist's 
Life  of  Calhoun,  p.  74. 

8.  Is  this  claim  on  behalf  of  the  National  Government  denied 
by  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798?    If  the 
claim  were  established  would  that  indicate  a  change  in   the 
character  of  the  Government  from  its  original  form  ? 

9.  Does  Calhoun  here  concede  that  it  was  in  vain  that  South 
Carolina  had  stood  for  the  protection  of  the  State  and  against 
central  encroachment  in  1830-33  ?    Or,  does  he  wish  to  indi- 
cate that  subsequent  developments  had  proven  the  wisdom  of 
that  notable  contention  of  South  Carolina  ? 

10.  Calhoun  was  the  first  pro-slavery  leader  who  came  to 
the  defence  of  slavery  as  a  good  thing  in  itself.      He  pro- 
nounced it  a  "positive  good"  ;  that  slavery  was  "a  political 
institution  essential  to  the  peace,  safety,  and  prosperity  of  the 
States  in  which  it  exists."     See  his  Speech  on  the  Abolition 
Petitions,  February  6,  1837  ;  his  Diplomatic  Correspondence, 
Letter  to  Packenham,  1844  ;   Von  Hoist's  Life  of  Calhoun, 
pp.  165-175  ;  Jenkins'  Life  of  Calhoun,  pp.  380-384.     Gover- 
nor McDuffie's  Address  to  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina 


JOHN  C.    CALHOUN.  385 

contains  a  similar  defence  of  slavery. — See  American  History 
Leaflets,  Lovell  &  Co.,  N.  Y. 

11.  The  New  England  Anti-Slavery  Society  was  organized 
in  1831,  and  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  in  1833.     But 
their  agitation  had  not  attracted  general  attention  until  the 
date  mentioned  by  Calhoun.     By  that  time  anti-slavery  peti- 
tions were  pouring  in  on  Congress. 

12.  See  Speech  on  Abolition  Petitions,  February  6,  1837. 

13.  The  schism  between  North  and  South  in  this  Church 
occurred  in  1844,  a  chism  not  yet  healed.     The  occasion  was 
the  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew  by  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence, for  refusing  to  emancipate  slaves  coming  to  him  by  his 
wife. 

14.  The  plan  of  Clay  may  be  seen  in  his  resolutions.     See 
Historical  Note,  p.  379.     President  Taylor's  plan  was  to  admit 
California  with  her  free  Constitution  ;  wait  on  the  people  of 
New  Mexico,  allowing  them  to  act  and  form  their  own  insti- 
tutions, before   Congressional   introduction   of  the  sectional 
topic.     That  is,  let  the  question  rest  in  the  Territories  until 
they  were  ready  to  be  admitted  as  States.      This  was  not  con- 
gressional extension  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  by  declaration,  or 
act,  but  was  the  same  in  effect.     The  laws  of  Mexico  prohib- 
iting slavery  would  have  been  recognized  by  the  administra- 
tion as  operative  in  New  Mexico,  which  would  have  encouraged 
the  formation  of  a  free  State  constitution,  like  that  of  Califor- 
nia.    But  in  forming  the  State  constitution,  the  settlers  were 
to  be  left  free.     How  did  this  plan  differ  from  that  of  "  Popu- 
lar Sovereignty,"  of  1854  ? 

15.  Clay  had  briefly  discussed  his  resolutions,  seriatim,  on 
January  29,  1850.     He  spoke  again  briefly  upon  the  admission 
of  California  and  other  related  topics,  on  February  15,  1850, 
and  again  at  length  on  May  I3th.     See  note  on  Clay  p.  407. 

VOL.  II.— 25 


386  NOTES. 

1 6.  In  the  parts  omitted  Calhoun  discussed  the  Executive 
plan,  which  he  calls  the  "executive  proviso,"  and  this,  he 
says,  is  more  objectionable  to  the  South  than  the  Wilmot  Pro- 
viso. The  president's  plan  seeks  to  allay  opposition  in  the 
South  by  not  openly  asserting  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  but  effect- 
ing the  same  thing  by  taking  special  care  to  exclude  Southern 
settlers  "by  holding  up  to  them  the  dread  of  having  their 
slaves  liberated  under  the  Mexican  laws."  He  then  proceeds 
to  combat  the  theory  of  "popular  sovereignty,"  holding  that 
the  power  of  legislating  for  the  Territories  was  vested  in  Con- 
gress, not  in  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories.  He  objects 
to  the  process  of  state-formation  in  California,  as  "  revolution- 
ary and  rebellious  in  its  character,  anarchial  in  its  tendency 
and  calculated  to  lead  to  the  most  dangerous  consequences." 
He  describes  what  had  been  the  uniform  rule  in  the  formation 
and  admission  of  States  and  compares  the  case  of  California 
with  that  of  Michigan  and  that  of  Tennessee.  See  Jenkins' 
Life  of  Calhoun,  pp.  431-437  ;  Calhoun's  Works. 

(7.  See  remarks  of  Seward  on  the  equilibrium,  speech  of 
March  II,  1850,  Works  of  Seward.  Such  an  amendment  as 
Calhoun  considered  necessary  to  save  the  Union  he  had 
elaborated  in  his  "  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States.  It  proposed  that  there  should 
be  two  presidents,  one  for  external  affairs  and  one  for 
internal  affairs,  but  that  each  should  have  a  veto  on  all  con- 
gressional legislation.  Von  Hoist  says  of  this,  that  "as  a 
plan  for  saving  the  Union,  it  was  one  of  the  most  monstrous 
political  absurdities  ever  devised  ;  "  and  that  "  Calhoun's  only 
plan  of  saving  the  Union  was  in  reality  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union."— Von  Hoist's  United  States  Constitutional  History, 
pp.  495-496.  See  also  Calhoun's  Works,  and  Rhodes'  United 
States  History,  vol.  i.,  p.  129. 

18.  "  When,  after  the  reading  of  the  speech,  supported  on 


JOHN    C.    CALHOUN.  387 

the  shoulders  of  two  of  his  friends,  he  tottered  out  of  the  Sen- 
ate Chamber,  the  doors  that  shut  behind  him  closed  on  the 
second  period  of  the  history  of  the  Union  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, in  which  the  Star  of  the  South  had  mounted  to  the  zenith." 
—Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  p. 
497,  Vol.  1846-50. 

' '  The  floor  of  the  Senate  was  assigned  to  Calhoun  for  the 
4th  of  March,  to  speak  on  the  compromise  resolutions.  Long 
battle  with  disease  had  wasted  his  frame,  but,  swathed  in  flan- 
nels, he  crawled  to  the  Senate  Chamber  to  utter  his  last  words 
of  warning  to  the  North,  and  to  make  his  last  appeal  for  what 
he  considered  justice  to  his  own  beloved  South.  He  was  too 
weak  to  deliver  his  carefully  written  speech.  At  his  request, 
it  was  read  by  Senator  Mason.  Calhoun  sat,  with  head  erect 
and  eyes  partly  closed,  immovable  in  front  of  the  reader  ;  and 
he  did  not  betray  a  sense  of  the  deep  interest  with  which  his 
friends  and  followers  listened  to  the  well-matured  words  of 
their  leader  and  political  guide.  This  was  Calhoun's  last  for- 
mal speech  ;  before  the  end  of  the  month  he  had  passed  away 
from  the  scene  of  earthly  contention.  The  speech  is  mainly 
interesting  as  stating  with  precision  the  numerical  preponder- 
ance of  the  North,  the  reasons  of  Southern  discontent,  and  the 
forebodings  of  his  prophetic  soul  in  reference  to  the  future."" 
— Rhodes'  History  of  United  States  Since  1850 ',  vol.  i.,  pp. 
127-128. 

4 '  Calhoun's  speech,  long  promised  and  carefully  written  out, 
was  the  last  great  effort  of  his  life.  The  gloom  of  the  sick 
chamber  in  which  he  prepared  it  deepened  its  raven  gloss  ;  its 
dismal  croak  was  of  disunion.  Another  crowded  auditory 
listened  to  that  speech,  on  the  4th  of  March,  which  Mason,  a 
fellow-Senator,  read  from  the  revised  proof  ;  but  Calhoun  was 
present  and  listened  to  the  delivery,  like  some  disembodied 
spirit  reviewing  the  deeds  of  the  flesh.  It  was  a  strangely 
haunting  spectacle.  The  author  turned  half  round,  and  listened 


388  NOTES. 

as  though  all  were  new  to  him,  moving  not  a  muscle  of  his 
face,  but  keeping  his  immovable  posture,— pale,  skinny,  and 
emaciated  that  he  was, — with  eyes  partially  closed,  until  the 
last  words  were  uttered  and  the  spell  was  broken." — Schouler's 
United  States  History \  vol.  v.,  pp.  165-166. 


DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

1.  For  a  sketch  of  Webster,  see  vol.  i.,  p.  385. 

2.  Historical  Note  : 

This  speech  of  Webster's  was  delivered  in  the  United  States 
Senate  on  the  7th  of  March,  1850.  It  is  the  only  speech  in 
literature,  so  far  as  we  know,  that  is  known  by  the  date  of 
its  delivery.  It  is  also  called  the  "  Speech  on  the  Constitution 
and  the  Union." 

In  approaching  the  study  of  this  speech,  it  is  important  to 
notice  Webster's  record  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  and  slavery 
extension .  While  unwilling  to  disturb  the  social  relations  of 
the  South,  he  had  not  hesitated  to  speak  against  "slavery  in 
the  abstract,"  and  he  had  taken  a  positive  stand  against  slav- 
ery extension.  He  considered  Southern  slavery  a  Southern 
question.  In  1819,  during  the  Missouri  struggle,  he  prepared 
the  Massachusetts  Memorial  to  Congress,  praying  that  body  to 
exercise  its  constitutional  powers  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories. He  put  into  that  paper  all  there  was  to  be  said 
against  allowing  slavery  to  gain  a  foothold  in  a  new  country. 
In  1820,  in  his  celebrated  speech  on  the  "First  Settlement  of 
New  England,"  he  gave  to  anti-slavery  literature  one  of  its 
most  vehement  passages  against  the  iniquity  of  the  slave  trade. 
In  1830,  in  his  reply  to  Hayne,  he  expressed  the  opinion  that 
slavery  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  evils,  both  moral  and  politi- 
cal, although  he  was  willing  to  leave  the  domestic  slavery  of 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  389 

the  South  where  he  found  it ;  and  in  referring  to  the  Ordi- 
nance of  1787,  he  considered  it  "  highly  wise  and  useful  in 
legislating  for  the  northwest  country  while  it  was  yet  a  wilder- 
ness to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves."  In  his  speech  at 
Niblo's  Garden,  New  York,  March  15,  1837,  after  the  annex- 
ation of  Texas  had  come  into  public  discussion,  Mr.  Webster 
gave  a  more  notable  public  expression  in  opposition  to  slavery 
extension.  He  said  :  "  Gentlemen,  we  all  see  that  by  whom- 
soever possessed,  Texas  is  likely  to  be  a  slave-holding  country  ; 
and  I  frankly  avow  my  unwillingness  to  do  anything  which 
shall  extend  the  area  of  the  slavery  of  the  African  race  upon 
this  continent,  or  add  other  slave-holding  States  to  the  Union. 
When  I  say  that  I  regard  slavery  as  in  itself  a  great  moral, 
social,  and  political  evil,  I  only  use  language  which  has  been 
adopted  by  distinguished  men,  themselves  the  citizens  of  slave- 
holding  States.  I  shall  do  nothing,  therefore,  to  favor  or  en- 
courage its  further  extension." 

In  1842,  while  he  was  Secretary  of  State  under  Tyler,  Web- 
ster conducted  our  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  in  the  case 
of  The  Creole.  In  his  diplomatic  correspondence  in  this  case 
Webster  held  that  it  was  the  legitimate  function  of  the  gen- 
eral government  to  recover  damages  for  slave-owners  for  losses 
incurred  in  the  coast-wise  slave  trade  whenever  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  engaged  in  this  trade,  were  driven  by  stress  of 
weather  or  carried  by  unlawful  force  into  British  ports  and 
there  had  their  slaves  set  free.  In  support  of  the  slave  inter- 
est Webster  asserted  that  "slaves  are  recognized  as  property 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  those  States  in 
which  slavery  exists."  This  was  resented  by  Channing  and 
denied  as  a  constitutional  proposition  by  the  Liberty  party 
men  and  Free  Soilers.  These  held  that  slaves  were  recognized 
as  property  only  in  the  States  where  slavery  existed,  and  that 
by  the  law  of  those  States,  not  by  the  law  and  Constitution  of 
the  United  States ;  and  even  if  the  Constitution  does  recognize 


390  NOTES. 

slaves  as  property  in  those  States  where  slavery  exists,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  recognizes  them  as  such  and  supports  that 
condition  outside  of  those  States.  Anti-Slavery  opinion  cen- 
sured Webster  for  his  conduct  of  The  Creole  case. 

In  the  Oregon  debate  Webster  boldly  favored  congressional 
restriction  on  slavery.  For  an  extract  of  his  speech  at  this 
time  see  p.  389. 

Such  had  been  the  record  of  Webster  on  the  subject  of  slav- 
ery before  his  great  speech  on  the  7th  of  March.  It  was,  in 
the  main,  a  record  which  had  excited  in  the  minds  of  the 
anti-slavery  advocates  expectations  that  he  would  speak  help- 
fully and  powerfully  for  their  cause.  It  should  be  one  of  the 
purposes  of  the  student  of  the  7th  of  March  speech  to  deter- 
mine to  what  extent  Webster  then  changed  his  course,  and  in 
how  far  he  was  culpable  for  the  change. 

In  the  pamphlet  edition  the  speech  was  dedicated  as  follows : 

"  With  the  highest  Respect 
and  the  Deepest  sense  of  Obligation 
I  dedicate  this  Speech 

to  the 
People  of  Massachusetts." 

"  His  ego  gratiora  dictu  aliaesse;  sed  me  Vera  pro  Gratis 
loqui,  etsi  meum  ingenium  non  moneret  necessitas  cogit'. 
Vellem  equidem,  vobis  placere  ;  sed  multo  malo  vos  salvos 
esse,  qualicumque  erga  me  animo  futuri  estis."* 

*  "  I  know  that  there  are  other  things  to  say  more  pleas- 
ing than  these,  but  necessity  compels  me  to  speak  the  things 
that  are  true  rather  than  the  things  that  are  pleasant,  although 
my  inclination  does  not  so  advise.  I  should,  indeed,  wish  to 
please  you,  but  I  much  prefer  that  you  be  safe,  no  matter  in 
what  disposition  you  may  be  toward  me." 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  39! 

3.  He  here  reviews  historically  the  outbreak  of  the  Mexican 
War,  its  results,  the  Mexican  territorial  cessions,  the  gold  dis- 
coveries in  California,  the  rapid  settlement  of  that  country, 
and  the  formation  of  a  State  government  there.     He  refers, 
also,  to  the  expectation  on  the  part  of  the  South  that  more 
slave  territory  was  to  be  the  result  of  the  Mexican  War,  and 
now  that  California  and  New  Mexico  were  apt  to  come  in  as 
free  States,  there  was  manifest  disappointment. 

4.  He  here  discusses  briefly  the  Greek  and  Roman  grounds 
for  slavery. 

5.  "  The  object  of  the  instruction  imparted  to  mankind  by 
the  Founder  of  Christianity  was  to  touch  the  heart,  purify  the 
soul,  and  improve  the  lives  of  individual  men,"  Webster  says. 

6.  He   refers   to  the  schism  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  with  expressions  of  regret. 

7.  Was  this  a  true  characterization  of  the  Abolitionists? 
Would  this  passage  justify  Phillips  in  calling  Webster  a  public 
man  of  "easy  morality  "  ? 

8.  In  this  omission  Webster  continues  in  the  same  vein  of 
opposition  to  the  vexatious  impatience  of  the  Abolitionists. 

9.  Webster  goes  on  to  say  that   this  early  opposition   to 
slavery  was  even  more  pronounced  at  the  South  than  at  the 
North.     The  framers  of  the  Constitution,  considering  slavery 
an  evil,  thought  they  had  provided  for  its  gradual  extinction 
by  allowing  the  importation  of  slaves  to  be  cut  off  after  1808. 
Mr.    Madison  was  especially  anxious  that    the  slave    trade 
should  be  thus  curtailed. 

10.  As  further  evidence  of  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the 
formative  period  of  the  Constitution,  Webster  refers  to  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  and  Virginia's  cession  of  the  Northwest 
Territory  and  her  vote  to  exclude  slavery  therefrom.      He 


392  NOTES. 

answers  Calhoun  by  saying  that  the  Ordinance  ot  1787,  the 
first  "  restrictive  measure  calculated  to  enfeeble  the  South," 
was  enacted  by  the  full  concurrence  of  that  section.  The  act 
was  not  an  aggression.  This  historical  fact  was  clear.  An- 
other clear  historical  fact  was  that  the  Convention  of  1787 
intended  to  leave  Slavery  "  in  the  States  as  they  found  it." 

(1)  The  Constitution  recognized  slavery  as  it  existed  in  the 
States. 

(2)  Congressional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

(3)  Non-importation  of  slaves  after  1808,  with  a  view  to  the 
gradual  extinction  of  the  institution. 

These  three  points,  according  to  Webster,  indicated  the  mat- 
ters on  which  there  was  "  entire  concurrence  of  sentiment  be- 
tween the  North  and  the  South  at  the  period  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution."  He  proceeds  to  discuss  the  reasons  for 
the  subsequent  change  in  this  sentiment. 

II.  In  answering  Calhoun  on  the  point  that  the  preponder- 
ance of  power  was  in  the  North,  Webster  asserts  that  the 
Northern  majority  must  have  acted  very  liberally  or  very 
weakly.  Northern  power  had  never  been  exercised.  He 
then  goes  on  to  show  that  the  power  of  government  had  been 
exercised  for  the  extension  of  territory  for  the  sake  of  cotton 
culture  and  slavery,  illustrating  by  the  cases  of  Louisiana, 
Florida,  and  Texas.  The  resolution  admitting  Texas,  March 
I,  1845,  provided  that  new  States,  not  exceeding  four  in  num- 
ber, in  addition  to  the  State  of  Texas,  might  be  fonned  out 
of  the  territory  of  that  State.  The  States  from  this  territory 
south  of  36°  30'  were  to  be  admitted  slave  or  free,  as  they 
chose.  Webster  showed  that  this  committed  all  of  Texas  to 
slavery.  It  was  "fixed,  pledged,  fastened,  decided,  to  be 
slave  territory  forever  by  the  solemn  guarantees  of  law." 
This  was  done,  as  Webster  shows,  by  Northern  votes,  by  the 
consent  of  Northern  men. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  393 

12.  Mr.  Hamlin,  afterwards  Vice-President,  1861-1865. 

13.  Two  members  from  Massachusetts  voted  for  the  annex- 
ation of  Texas,  Williams  and  Parmenter.     See  Proceedings 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  27,  1845. 

14.  The  Hon.  George  W.  Julian  says,  in  a  letter  to  the 
editor,  with  regard  to  this  passage  :  "  The  district  referred  to 
was  the  one  in  which  Dr.  Palfrey  was  elected  in  1847,  and  in 
which  in  the  struggle  for  re-election  two  years  later  he  failed 
of  an   election   after  repeated  trials.     The  law  required  a 
majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  to  elect,  and  he  had  only  a 
plurality.     The  statement  that  the  Free  Soil  Sentiment  de- 
feated the  choice  of  any  member  was  only  true  in  the  sense 
that  in  the  division  of  the  voters  of  the  district  between  the 
Whigs,    [Democrats?]    and    Free   Soilers   no   candidate   had 
votes  enough  to  elect." 

15.  This  term  was  used  to  describe  the  Northern  wing  of 
the  Democratic  party, — those  opposed  to  Southern  pro-slavery 
control  of  the  party. 

1 6.  Mr.  Berrien. 

17.  To  defer  anything  to  the  Greek  Kalends  was  to  defer 
it  forever.     There  were  no  Kalends  in  the  Greek  months. 

1 8.  In  this  omission  Webster  speaks  of  his  record  in  oppo- 
sition to  slavery  extension  and  of  his  reluctance  to  consent  to 
such  extension  by  the  annexation  of  Texas.     He  quotes  from 
his  speech  at  Niblo's,  1837,  and  from  his  speech  at  a  Whig 
Convention  in  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  September,  1847. 
In  the  latter  speech  he  claimed  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  a 
Whig  principle  and  that  he  had  stood  for  it  since  1837.     "  We 
are  to  use  the  first  and  the  last  and  every  occasion  which 
offers  to  oppose  the  extension  of  slave  power."     These  were 
his  words.     See  also,  the  Historical  Note,  p.  389. 


394  NOTES. 

19.  The  Three  Million  Loan  Bill  proposed  to  appropriate 
$3,000,000  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  any  extraordinary 
expenses  which  might  be  incurred  in  bringing  the  war  with 
Mexico  to  a  conclusion.     Webster's  speech  on  this  bill  was 
made  March  I,   1847. — See  Webster's  Works,   vol.    v.,  pp. 
253-261. 

20.  This  was  to  carve  new  States  out  of  Texas,  by  her  con- 
sent and  when  her  population  justified  it,  and  admit  them  as 
slave  States. 

21.  A  Convention  in  New  Mexico  in  1859  adopted  a  Consti- 
tution in  preparation  for  Statehood.     This  constitution  pro- 
vided for  the  admission  of  slavery. 

22.  To  what  extent  does  this  notable  utterance  represent 
true  statesmanship  ? 

23.  In  the  omission  Webster  compares  his  attitude  toward 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  on  a  New  Mexican  bill  with  that  of  Polk 
toward  the  same  proviso  on  the  Oregon  bill.     Polk  was  op- 
posed to  the  proviso  on  the  Oregon  bill,  but  he  considered  it 
senseless,  and  useless  to  its  promoters,  and  he  signed  the  bill 
for  the  sake  of  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon.     As  Polk 
would  forego  his  opposition  to  the  proviso,  so  Webster  would 
forego  his  advocacy  of  it  when  its  presence  or  its  absence 
would  affect  nothing. 

24.  Webster  remarks  that  all  the  territory  acquired  from 
Mexico  has  a  fixed  and  settled  condition,  that  of  Texas  by 
plighted  public  faith,  that  of  California  and  New  Mexico  by  a 
law  higher  than  human  enactments. 

25.  This  was  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania.     See 
Sumner's  Speech,  p.  317,  and  the  note  thereto,  Note  9,  p.  428. 

26.  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  the  author  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  of  1850. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  395 

27.  Did  the  persons  of  whom  Webster  here  speaks  consider 
that  their  moral  and  constitutional  obligations  were  in  con- 
flict ?    Or  did  they  interpret  the  Constitution  to  justify  their 
course  ?     See  Speech  of  Seward  on  "  the  higher  law,"  and  of 
Sumner  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

28.  Webster  refers  here  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Hillard,  in 
the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  to  the  effect  that  it  was  unbe- 
coming for  one  set  of  public  servants  to  lecture  and  instruct 
another  set  of  public  servants.     Webster  speaks  briefly  upon 
the    binding    force  of  State  legislative  instructions,  holding 
that  he  was  not  in  the  Senate  merely  as  the  representative  of 
Massachusetts. 

29.  For  some  account  of  these  discussions  see  Wilson's  Rise 
and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  i.,  pp.  189-207. 

30.  Is  this  true  ?    If  so  were  the  Abolitionists  responsible 
for  it  ? 

31.  Webster  refers  to  the  violence  of  the  press  North  and 
South  which  he   deprecates,  but   for  which  he  can  see  no 
redress. 

32.  Mr.  Solomon  W.  Downs,  the  senior  Senator  from  Loui- 
siana, in  a  long  speech  delivered  on  the  i8th  and  igth  of  Feb- 
ruary,  1850,  on  the  Compromise  Resolutions,  spoke  of  the 
condition  of  the  3,000,000  slaves  of  the  South,  claiming  that 
they  were  the  "  gayest,  happiest,  the  most  contented,  and  the 
best  fed  people  in  the  world.     They  are  not  only  immeasur- 
ably better  off  than  they  would  be  in  Africa,  where  their  an- 
cestors came  from,  but  take  the  whole  three  millions  and 
compare  them  with  a  like  number  of  laboring  people  in 
Europe,  or  even  in  our  own  Northern  States,  and  they  would 
not  only  stand  a  comparison,   but  would  prove  themselves 
superior,  so  far  as  the  comforts  and  enjoyments  of  life  are 


396  NOTES. 

concerned."— (Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  ist  Sess.,  sist 
Congress,  part  i.,  p.  175.)  Rhodes  says  no  statement  was 
more  completely  false  than  such  as  this.  See  History  of  the 
United  States,  vol.  i. ,  p.  305  ;  also  Olmsted's  Cotton  King- 
dom, vol.  ii.,  p.  238. 

33.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  connection  with  this  remark 
the  concentration  of  wealth  since  Webster's  day.      What  pro- 
portion of  wealth  is  now  (1896)  "  in  the  hands  of  the  laborers 
of  the  North  "  ? 

34.  In  1835  South  Carolina  passed  an  act  providing  that 
any  colored  person  found  on  board  of  any  vessel  entering  her 
ports  should  be  seized  and  jailed  till  the  vessel  should  sail, 
then  to  be  restored  to  the  vessel  on  payment  of  costs.     Massa- 
chusetts decided  to  test  this  act,  basing  the  test  on  the  clause 
of  the  Constitution  which  says  that  "  citizens  of  each  State 
shall  have  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the 
several  States."     South  Carolina's  act  was  clearly  unconstitu- 
tional, since  colored  men  were  citizens  of  some  of  the  States. 
Governor  Briggs  appointed  Samuel  Hoar  to  go  to  Charleston 
to  institute  proceedings.     For  the  result  of  this  mission  see 
Greeley's  American  Conflict^  vol.  i.,   pp.  178-185  ;  and  Wil- 
son's Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  i.,  pp.  576-586. 

35.  The  omission  contains  remarks  on  two  subjects.     As  to 
Texas,  he  would  be  glad  to  see  her  paid  fairly  for  any  cession 
she  may  choose  to  make  north  of  36°  30',  to  be  erected  into  a 
free  State.     As  to  emancipation  and  transportation  of  free 
colored  people  he  would  be  glad  to  see  almost  any  expense 
incurred  to  accomplish  the  object.     Webster  indorsed  King's 
proposition  made  in  1820. — See  note,  p.  349.     Webster  would 
heartily  co-operate  with  Southern  men  in  accomplishing  the 
amelioration  of  the  Southern  blacks. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  397 

36.  Probably  no  speech  in  American  history  has  ever  ex- 
cited so  much  attention  and  criticism  as  this  speech  of  Web- 
ster's. It  caused  Webster  to  be  denounced  and  repudiated  by 
the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  North.  Before  1850  he  had 
spoken  repeatedly  against  slavery  extension  ;  now  he  seemed 
willing  that  the  new  territory  should  be  organized  without 
restriction. 

To  the  anti-slavery  reformer  he  appeared  to  magnify  the 
grievances  of  the  South  against  the  North,  -while  almost  over- 
looking those  of  the  North  against  the  South.  Mr.  Elaine 
says  :  "  Instead  of  arraigning  the  propagandists  of  slavery,  he 
arraigned  its  opponents.  Instead  of  indicting  the  disunionists 
of  the  South,  he  poured  out  his  wrath  on  the  Abolitionists  of 
the  North."* 

Curtis,  Webster's  biographer,  concedes  that  the  speech  was 
received  "by  the  great  majority  of  the  North  with  disfavor  and 
disapprobation." 

Joshua  R.  Giddings  said  that  that  part  of  Webster's  criticism 
against  the  South  relating  to  the  treatment  of  colored  seamen 
"  was  not  in  the  speech  as  spoken,  but  was  inserted  by  Web- 
ster in  the  printed  copy  for  circulation  at  the  North.  By 
this  speech  a  blow  was  struck  at  freedom  and  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  free  States,  which  no  Southern  arm  could 
have  given." 

In  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  Webster  was  called  a  ' '  rec- 
reant son  of  Massachusetts,"  who  misrepresented  her  in  the 
Senate.  Henry  Wilson  declared  that  Webster  in  his  speech 
had  simply,  but  hardly,  stated  the  Northern  and  national  side, 
while  he  had  earnestly  advocated  the  Southern  and  sectional 
side  ;  that  his  speech  was  "  Southern  altogether,  in  its  tone, 
argument,  aim,  and  end."  Horace  Mann  wrote  :  "  Webster  is 
a  fallen  star.  There  is  a  very  strong  opinion  here  at  Washing- 

*  Elaine's  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i. ,  p.  93. 


398  NOTES. 

ton  that  Mr.  Webster  has  played  false  to  the  North."  He  was 
accused  on  all  sides  of  having  made  a  bid  for  the  presidency. 
Theodore  Parker  compared  the  speech  to  the  treason  of  Bene- 
dict Arnold  ;  he  called  Webster  "  A  bankrupt  politician  gam- 
ing for  the  presidency,"  and  he  asserted  that  not  one  hundred 
respectable  men  in  New  England  endorsed  the  speech.  The 
religious  press  almost  uniformaly  disapproved.  Emerson,  the 
Sage  of  Concord,  wrote  :  "  Mr.  Webster  is  only  following  the 
laws  of  his  blood  and  constitution.  He  is  a  man  who  lives  by 
his  Memory  ;  a  man  of  the  past,  not  a  man  of  faith  and  hope. 
All  the  drops  of  his  blood  have  eyes  that  look  downward,  and 
his  finely  developed  understanding  only  works  truly  and  with 
all  its  force,  when  it  stands  for  animal  good,  that  is,  for  pro- 
perty. He  looks  at  the  Union  as  an  estate,  a  large  farm,  and 
is  excellent  in  the  completion  of  his  defence  of  it  so  far.  What 
he  finds  already  written  he  will  defend.  Lucky  that  so  much 
got  written  before  he  came,  for  he  has  no  faith  in  the  power 
of  self-government." 

Whittier,  the  poet  of  Freedom,  indited  with  indignant  fervor 
his  poem  of  "  Ichabod,"  which  he  applied  to  Webster  : 

"  So  fallen  !     So  lost !  the  light  withdrawn 

Which  once  he  wore. 
The  glory  from  his  gray  hairs  gone 
Forevermore  ! 

.  « 

1 '  Let  not  the  land  once  proud  of  him 

Insult  him  now, 

Nor  brand  with  deeper  shame  his  dim 
Dishonored  brow. 

"  But  let  its  humbler  sons  instead 

From  sea  to  lake 
A  long  lament,  as  for  the  dead, 
In  sadness  make. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  399 

"  Of  all  we  loved  and  honored  naught 

Save  power  remains  ; 
A  fallen  angel's  pride  of  thought 
Still  strong  in  chains. 

"  All  else  is  gone ;  from  those  great  eyes 

The  soul  has  fled  ; 
When  faith  is  lost,  when  honor  dies, 
The  man  is  dead. 

'*  Then  pay  the  reverence  of  old  days 

To  his  dead  fame  ; 
Walk  backward  with  averted  gaze 
And  hide  his  shame." 

These  extracts  indicate  the  violent  nature  of  the  controversy 
over  Mr.  Webster's  course.  Certainly  no  other  speech  of  the 
great  orator  ever  produced  so  great  a  sensation  as  did  this. 
The  reply  to  Hayne  and  the  reply  to  Calhoun,  as  Mr.  Rhodes 
says,  have  a  more  permanent  value  and  a  more  lasting  influ- 
ence ;  the  7th  of  March  Speech  dealt  entirely  with  slavery,  and 
when  slavery  with  its  problems  and  contentions  had  passed 
away  the  speech  lost  all  but  its  historical  interest.*  But  from 
the  historical  point  of  view,  this  is  the  most  interesting  of  Web- 
ster's speeches. 

It  is  pertinent  to  consider  here  the  altered  verdict  on  Web- 
ster which  dates  from  the  yth  of  March  Speech,  as  represented 
in  these  hostile  criticisms.  Some  consider  that  the  change  of 
sentiment  towards  Webster  was  but  temporary,  that  the  judg- 
ment of  posterity  is  more  fair  and  more  favorable.  Many 
think  otherwise  and  still  approve  the  condemnation  then 
visited  upon  Webster.  Hon.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  Webster's 
latest  biographer,  says :  '*  Mr.  Curtis  correctly  says  that  a 

*  History  of  the  United  States  since  /£$(>,  vol.  i. ,  p.  149. 


4OO  NO  TES. 

great  majority  of  Mr.  Webster's  constituents,  if  not  of  the 
whole  North,  disapproved  of  this  speech.  He  might  have 
added  that  that  majority  has  steadily  increased.  The  popular 
verdict  has  been  given  against  the  7th  of  March  Speech,  and 
that  verdict  has  passed  into  history.  Nothing  can  now  be  said 
or  written  which  will  alter  the  fact  that  the  people  of  this 
country  who  maintained  and  saved  the  Union  have  passed 
judgment  upon  Mr.  Webster  and  condemned  what  he  said  on 
the  7th  of  March,  1850,  as  wrong  in  principle  and  mistaken  in 
policy.  This  opinion  is  not  universal, — no  opinion  is, — but  it 
is  held  by  the  great  body  of  mankind  who  know  or  care  any- 
thing about  the  subject,  and  it  cannot  be  changed  or  substan- 
tially modified,  because  subsequent  events  have  fixed  its  place 
and  worth  irrevocably."* 

In  examining  the  ground  for  this  judgment,  Mr.  Lodge  em- 
phasizes the  inconsistency  in  the  tone  of  Webster's  speech  and 
his  views  on  the  general  subject  of  slavery  as  compared  with  his 
former  unmistakable  position,  an  inconsistency  especially 
manifest  in  his  utterances  in  regard  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 
"  There  can  be  no  doubt,"  says  Lodge,  "  that  under  the  Con- 
stitution the  South  had  a  perfect  right  to  claim  the  extradition 
of  fugitive  slaves.  The  legal  argument  in  support  of  that 
right  was  excellent,  but  the  Northern  people  could  not  feel 
that  it  was  necessary  for  Daniel  Webster  to  make  it.  The 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  in  absolute  conflict  with  the  awakened 
conscience  and  moral  sentiment  of  the  North.  .  .  .  The 
consciences  of  men  cannot  be  coerced  ;  and  when  Mr.  Web- 
ster undertook  to  do  it  he  dashed  himself  against  the  rocks. 
People  did  not  stop  to  distinguish  between  a  legal  argument 
and  a  defence  of  the  merits  of  catching  runaway  slaves.  To 
refer  to  the  original  law  of  1793  was  idle.  Public  opinion  had 
changed  in  half  a  century ;  and  what  had  seemed  reasonable 

*  Lodge's  Life  of  Webster,  p.  303. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  401 

at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  monstrous  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth. 

"  All  this  Mr.  Webster  declined  to  recognize.  He  upheld 
without  diminution  or  modification  the  constitutional  duty  of 
sending  escaping  slaves  back  to  bondage  ;  and  from  the  legal 
soundness  of  this  position  there  is  no  escape.  The  trouble  was 
that  he  had  no  word  to  say  against  the  cruelty  and  barbarity  of 
the  system.  To  insist  upon  the  necessity  of  submitting  to  the 
hard  and  repulsive  duty  imposed  by  the  Constitution  was  one 
thing.  To  urge  submission  without  a  word  of  sorrow  or  re- 
gret was  another.  The  North  felt,  and  felt  rightly,  that 
while  Mr.  Webster  could  not  avoid  admitting  the  force  of  the 
constitutional  provisions  about  fugitive  slaves,  and  was  obliged 
to  bow  to  their  behest,  yet  to  defend  them  without  reservation, 
to*"  attack  those  who  opposed  them,  and  to  urge  the  rigid  en- 
forcement of  a  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  was  not  in  consonance 
with  his  past,  his  conscience,  and  his  duty  to  his  constituents. 
The  constitutionality  of  a  Fugitive  Slave  Law  may  be  urged 
and  admitted  over  and  over  again,  but  this  could  not  make 
the  North  believe  that  advocacy  of  slave-catching  was  a  task 
suited  to  Daniel  Webster.  The  simple  fact  was  that  he  did 
not  treat  the  general  question  of  slavery  as  he  always 
had  treated  it.  Instead  of  denouncing  and  deploring  it,  and 
striking  at  it  whenever  the  Constitution  permitted,  he  apolo- 
gised for  its  existence,  and  urged  the  enforcement  of  its  most 
obnoxious  laws.  This  was  not  his  attitude  in  1820  ;  this  was 
not  what  the  people  of  the  North  expected  of  him  in  1850."* 

Mr.  Lodge  discusses  further  the  situation  in  1850  in  regard 
to  the  policy  of  compromise,  and  he  considers  that  the  conces- 
sions of  Webster  and  his  pro-slavery  attitude  were  not  neces- 
sary in  order  to  save  the  Union. \ 

*  Lodge's  Life  of  Webster,  pp.  306,  307,  308. 
f  Lodge's  Life  of  Webster •,  p.  308,  et  seq. 

VOL.  II. — 26 


402 


NO  TES. 


On  the  other  hand,  fairness  to  Webster  requires  a  statement 
of  some  considerations  more  favorable  to  his  fame.  Mr. 
Rhodes,  the  latest  historian  of  this  period  says:  "It  is 
probable  that  the  matured  historical  view  will  be  that  Webster's 
position  as  to  the  application  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  New 
Mexico  was  the  statesmanship  of  the  highest  order.  In  1846, 
1847,  and  1848,  the  formal  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
territory  to  be  acquired,  or  which  was  acquired,  from  Mexico, 
seemed  a  vital  and  practical  question.  The  latitude  of  the 
territory  in  dispute  gave  reason  to  suppose  that  its  products 
would  be  those  of  the  cotton  States,  and  that  it  would  naturally 
gravitate  towards  slave  institutions.  While  many  believed  that 
the  Mexican  law  sufficed  to  preserve  freedom  in  California  and 
New  Mexico,  it  nevertheless  was  good  policy  to  make  extraor- 
dinary appropriations  for  the  war  only  on  condition  of  'an 
express  understanding  that  the  territory  acquired  should  be 
free.  But  in  1850  the  question  had  changed.  California  had 
decided  for  herself ;  and  the  more  important  half  of  the 
controversy  was  cut  off  by  the  action  of  the  people  interested. 
There  remained  New  Mexico.  The  very  fact  that  California 
had  forbidden  slavery  was  an  excellent  reason  for  believing 
that  New  Mexico  would  do  likewise.  .  .  .  The  corre- 
spondence between  Webster  and  the  delegate  to  Congress  from 
New  Mexico  shows  that  no  one  conversant  with  the  facts  had 
the  slightest  notion  that  slavery  had  any  chance  of  being  estab- 
lished in  that  Territory."  * 

The  change  in  the  situation  in  1850  over  that  of  1848  does 
not  appear  so  forcible  as  Mr.  Rhodes  attempts  to  make  out. 
He  urges  other  minor,  but  not  decisive,  considerations  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Webster.  The  most  forcible  defence  of  Webster, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  statesmanship  and  practical  politics, 

*  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States •,  vol.  i.,  pp.  150- 
151. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  403 

is  urged  by  Mr.  Elaine.  In  the  early  part  of  1861,  while  the 
Union  seemed  dissolving  by  secession,  with  a  Republican 
majority  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  Acts  organizing  the 
Territories  of  Colorado,  Dakota,  and  Nevada  were  passed  with- 
out containing  a  word  of  prohibition  on  the  subject  of  slavery. 
From  the  time  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  first  considered, 
the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  was  in  dispute  be- 
tween political  parties.  After  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  in  1854,  the  Republican  party  was  organized  on 
that  issue  alone,  and  for  seven  years  its  leaders  had  kept  up  an 
exclusive  agitation  on  this  one  question.  "  Yet,"  says  Mr. 
Elaine,  "  the  first  time  the  party  had  the  power,  as  a  distinc- 
tively political  organization,  to  enforce  the  cardinal  article  of 
its  political  creed,  it  quietly  and  unanimously  abandoned  it.'* 
Mr.  Sumner,  Mr.  Wade,  Mr.  Seward,  and  other  radical  Free 
Soilers  and  Republicans  of  former  days  sat  still  and  allowed 
the  bill  to  pass,  without  a  word  of  explanation  or  protest. 
Why  this  change  of  attitude  ?  Were  these  great  men  "  rec- 
reant "  to  their  former  principles  ?  The  answer  is,  that  they 
were  merely  in  the  position  in  which  Webster  found  himself 
in  1850.  Mr.  Elaine,  in  speaking  of  the  situation  and  states- 
men of  1861,  says : 

"If,  indeed,  it  be  fairly  and  frankly  admitted,  as  was  the 
fact,  that  receding  from  the  anti-slavery  position  was  part  of 
the  conciliatory  policy  of  the  hour,  and  that  the  Republicans, 
did  it  the  more  readily  because  they  had  full  faith  that  slavery 
never  could  secure  a  foothold  in  any  of  the  Territories  named,, 
it  must  be  likewise  admitted  that  the  Republican  party  took 
precisely  the  same  ground  held  by  Mr.  Webster  in  1850,  and 
acted  from  precisely  the  same  motives  that  inspired  the  7th  of 
March  Speech.  Mr.  Webster  maintained  for  New  Mexico 
only  what  Mr.  Sumner  now  admitted  for  Colorado  and 
Nevada.  Mr.  Webster  acted  from  the  same  considerations 
that  now  influenced  and  controlled  the  judgment  of  Mr. 


404  NOTES. 

Seward.  As  a  matter  of  historic  justice,  the  Republicans  who 
waived  the  anti-slavery  restriction  should  at  least  have  offered 
and  recorded  their  apology  for  any  animadversions  they  had 
made  upon  the  course  of  Mr.  Webster  ten  years  before. 
Every  prominent  Republican  senator  who  agreed  in  1861  to 
abandon  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in  organizing  the 
Territories  of  Colorado  and  Nevada,  had,  in  1850,  heaped  re- 
proaches upon  Mr.  Webster  for  not  insisting  upon  the  same 
principle  for  the  same  territory.  Between  the  words  of  Mr. 
Seward  and  Mr.  Sumner  in  the  one  crisis  and  their  votes  in  the 
other,  there  is  a  discrepancy  for  which  it  would  have  been 
well  to  leave  on  record  an  adequate  explanation.  The  danger 
to  the  Union,  in  which  they  found  a  good  reason  for  receding 
from  the  anti-slavery  restriction  on  the  Territories,  had  been 
cruelly  denied  to  Mr.  Webster  as  a  justifying  motive.  They 
found  in  him  only  a  guilty  recreancy  to  sacred  principle  for 
the  same  act  which  in  themselves  was  inspired  by  devotion  to 
the  Union."* 

Mr.  Galusha  A.  Grow,  who  was,  in  1861,  the  Chairman  of 
the  House  Committee  on  Territories,  criticises  this  passage  of 
Blaine,  saying  that  the  situations  in  1850  and  1861  were  not  at 
all  similar.  His  remark  merely  emphasizes  the  fact  that  a 
statesman's  course  must  be  determined  chiefly  by  his  circum- 
stances. The  interesting  question  is,  whether  the  situation  in 
1850  demanded  of  a  Northern  statesman  a  positive  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  the  territories,  which  was  not  demanded  by  the 
situation  in  1861.  There  is  still,  and  perhaps  always  will  be 
a  difference  of  opinion  on  that  question. f  It  should  be 
understood  in  saying  that  a  statesman  should  be  guided  by  his 
circumstances,  that  there  are  certain  inviolable  principles  of 

*  Elaine's   Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  271. 
f  See  Addendum,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  ii. 


DANIEL    WEBSTER.  405 

morality  and  justice  which  are  not  to  be  compromised  or  given 
away. 

Webster  has  been  compared  to  Burke.  In  another  speech 
on  the  Compromise  Measures,  July  17,  1850,  he  took  as 
his  motto  a  passage  from  Burke's  speech  on  Conciliation 
with  America  :  ' '  Alas  !  alas  !  When  will  this  speculating 
against  fact  and  reason  end  ?  What  will  quiet  these  panic 
fears  which  we  entertain  of  the  hostile  effect  of  a  conciliatory 
conduct?  Is  all  authority,  of  course,  lost  when  it  is  not 
pushed  to  the  extreme?"  Webster  did  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  assert  his  former  principles  when  the  assertion 
would  result  in  nothing  but  irritation.  He  was  not  afraid  of 
the  charge  of  inconsistency,  for  he  wisely  regarded  consistency 
as  only  the  "bugbear  of  small  minds."  "  Whenever  there  is 
a  particular  good  to  be  done,  wherever  there  is  a  foot  of  land  to 
be  stayed  back  from  becoming  slave  territory,  I  am  ready  to 
assert  the  principle  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery.  I  am  pledged 
to  it  from  the  year  1837.  I  have  been  pledged  to  it  again  and 
again  ;  and  I  will  redeem  those  pledges.  But  I  will  not  do  a 
thing  unnecessary,  that  wounds  the  feelings  of  others,  or  that 
does  disgrace  to  my  own  understanding."  What  could  be  more 
like  Burke  ? 

It  has  been  said  of  Webster  that,  like  Burke,  "he  changed 
his  front  but  he  never  changed  his  ground  "  ;  and,  like  Burke, 
he  believed  that  prudence  is  the  first  of  political  virtues,  the 
standard  of  all  political  action.  We  may  conclude  that 
Webster  was  wrong  in  his  denunciations  of  the  Abolitionists ; 
that  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  failed  to  take  higher  ground 
upon  the  great  "irrepressible  conflict"  of  that  day.  It  would 
have  been  better  for  his  fame  if  he  had  stood  with  Seward  and 
Chase,  who  represented  the  higher  and  truer  statesmanship 
then  needed  to  meet  the  aggressions  of  slavery.  But,  after  all, 
we  may  well  believe  that  it  was  not  because  Webster  hated 
slavery  less,  but  that  he  loved  the  Union  more,  that  he  made 


406 


NOTES. 


this  speech.  He  simply  believed  that  slavery  could  not  be 
further  opposed  and  the  Union  preserved  ;  that  the  anti- 
slavery  crusade  could  not  continue  without  endangering  the 
Union.  He  represented  the  type  of  statesman  of  1787  and 
again  in  1863 — say,  of  Madison  and  Lincoln — , whose  para- 
mount object  was  in  the  first  instance  to  form,  in  the  second 
instance  to  preserve,  the  Union.  On  the  7th  of  March  Webster 
represented  the  resultant  of  forces,  the  conflict  of  motives. 
He  hated  slavery,  he  loved  the  Union  ;  his  love  for  the  Union 
was  the  stronger,  and  for  the  sake  of  that  affection  he  was 
willing  to  call  a  halt  upon  his  opposition  to  slavery. 

Webster  himself  considered  this  speech  the  most  important 
effort  of  his  life.  His  eulogists  have  said  that  it  postponed 
the  war  for  a  decade,  until  the  forces  of  the  Union  were  strong 
enough  for  its  preservation.  If  hostile  critics  may  truthfully 
say  that  this  Speech  added  nothing  to  a  life  of  otherwise  great 
achievement,  it  may  with  equal  truth  be  said  that  it  certainly 
was  not  the  occasion  of  any  serious  or  permanent  loss  to 
Webster's  fame.  With  it  or  without  it  the  life  and  speeches 
of  Daniel  Webster  will  be  read  by  all  subsequent  generations 
of  his  countrymen  with  admiration  for  his  marvellous  talents, 
and  with  gratitude  for  his  lasting  services  to  the  Republic.* 

For  further  study  of  the  situation  in  1850,  and  of  Webster's 
course,  see  previous  Introduction,  p.  v.  and  Historical  Note, 
p.  388.  Also  note  the  following  special  references  : 

Schouler's  United  States  History,  vol.  v.,  pp.  166  et  seq. 

Lodge's  Life  of  Webster,  pp.  287-332. 

Curtis'  Lifeof  Webster,  vol.  ii.,  pp.,  381-420. 

Elaine's  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  pp.  90  et  seq., 
and  p.  271,  and  the  Addendum. 

*  In  the  final  note  I  have  used  a  few  passages  from  my 
supplementary  note  to  the  7th  of  March  Speech  in  Select 
Orations  of  Burke  and  Webster,  published  by  Heath  &  Co. 


HENRY  CLAY.  407 

Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  Since  1850,  vol.  i.t 
pp.  137-160. 

Woodburn  and  Hodgin's  Select  Orations  of  Burke  and 
Webster  (Studies  in  American  Commonwealth) ,  pp.  509-517; 
PP.  574-582. 

Teft's  Life  of  Webster,  pp.  403-420. 

Von  Hoist's  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States, 
1846-1850,  pp.  497-507. 

Greeley's  American  Conflict,  vol.  i.,  pp.  198-208. 

Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power \  vol.  ii. 


HENRY  CLAY. 

1.  For  sketch  of  Clay,  see  vol.  i.f  p.  376. 

2.  This  speech  of  Clay's  was  made  in  the  United  States 
Senate  July  22,  1850.     This  was  nearly  six  months  after  he 
had  first  introduced  his  compromise  resolutions  (January  2gth) 
and  two  and  a  half  months  after  the  Committee  of  Thirteen 
had  made  its  report  (May  8th).     Mr.  Clay,  as  Chairman  of 
this  Committee,  had  charge  of  the  bills  which  it  reported,  and 
he  was  in  constant  service  answering  objections  and  urging 
arguments.     It  seemed  probable  for  a  while  that  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  compromise  scheme  would  be  strong  enough  to  de- 
feat it.     This  opposition  came  from  the  Free  Soilers  of  the 
North  and  the  extreme  slavery  advocates  of  the  South.     Dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  debate  and  before  this  speech  of  Clay's, 
two  events  occurred  which  had  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
outcome,     i.  The  Nashville  Convention  of  June  2-4,  1850. 
This  had  been  called  at  a  meeting  in  Jackson,  Mississippi,  in 
May,  1849,  for  the  purpose  of  solidifying  Southern  influence 
in  opposition  to   Northern  aggression.      The  Southern  dis- 


408  NOTES. 

unionists  proposed  to  make  this  Convention  the  occasion  of 
showing  the  opposition  of  the  South  to  the  Compromise.  From 
this  point  of  view  the  Convention  was  not  a  success,  and  its 
influence  tended  to  discourage  Southern  opposition  to  Clay's 
proposals.  2.  The  second  event  was  the  death  of  President 
Taylor,  July  9,  1850.  Seward  was  influential  in  the  councils 
of  Taylor,  and  the  influence  of  the  administration  had  been 
forcibly  exerted  against  certain  features  of  the  Compromise, 
notably  on  the  questions  touching  the  Territories  and  the 
Texan  boundary. 

During  the  long  debate  Mr.  Clay  had  spoken  many  times. 
On  February  I4th  he  spoke  at  length  in  favor  of  the  inde- 
pendent admission  of  California.  On  April  8th.  he  spoke  in 
favor  of  the  appointment  of  the  special  Committee  of  Thirteen. 
On  May  8th,  Mr.  Clay  made  the  report  for  this  Committee, 
and  on  May  13th,  he  spoke  at  length  in  favor  of  its  proposals. 
Two  days  later,  May  15th,  he  spoke  again  in  reply  to  Jeffer- 
son Davis,  of  Mississippi,  on  the  question  :  "  Does  the  Con- 
stitution carry  slavery  into  the  Territories  ?  "  Davis  had  pro- 
posed an  amendment  to  the  territorial  bills  for  Utah  and  New 
Mexico,  so  as  to  recognize  the  Calhoun  doctrine,  which  Clay 
opposed.  Clay  spoke  again  on  May  2ist,  answering  objec- 
tions to  the  Committee's  report.  On  June  7th,  8th,  and  I3th, 
he  speaks  on  the  title  and  boundary  of  Texas,  holding  that 
the  title  was  good  enough  to  justify  payment  for  the  claim. 
Again  on  July  15th  and  igth,  he  spoke  on  the  admission  of 
California,  now  incorporated  in  the  ' '  Omnibus  Bill. "  Clay 
held  at  this  time  that  this  admission  might  well  be  made  de- 
pendent on  the  other  proposals.  On  July  22d,  he  makes  his 
last  speech  on  these  subjects,  speaking  on  the  pending 
"Omnibus  Bill."  See  Historical  Note  to  Calhoun,  p.  380. 
"  Ever  since  January  28th  he  had  been  on  the  floor  almost 
day  after  day,  sometimes  so  ill  that  he  could  hardly  drag  his 
tottering  limbs  to  the  Senate  chamber.  So  he  toiled  on,  an- 


HENRY  CLAY.  409 

swering  objections  and  arguing  and  pleading,  and  expostulate 
ing,  and  appealing  and  beseeching,  with  anxious  solicitude, 
for  the  Union,  and  for  peace  and  harmony  among  all  its 
people.  He  had  thrown  aside  all  sectional  spirit.  '  Sir,'  he 
exclaimed  once,  '  I  have  heard  something  said  about  allegiance 
to  the  South.  I  know  no  South,  no  North,  no  East,  no  West, 
to  which  I  owe  any  allegiance.'  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
wisdom  of  his  policy,  his  motives  had  never  been  more  patri- 
otic and  unselfish.  He  was  no  longer  a  candidate  for  the 
Presidency.  There  was  no  longer  any  vulgar  ambition  dis- 
turbing him.  '  I  am  here,'  he  said,  '  expecting  soon  to  go 
hence,  and  owing  no  responsibility  but  to  my  own  conscience 
and  to  God."* 

After  the  "  Omnibus  Bill  "  had  been  so  disfigured  by  amend- 
ments that  Clay  thought  it  was  defeated,  he  retired  from  the 
leadership,  leaving  the  Senate  halls  for  rest  and  recuperation 
at  Newport.  It  was  in  Clay's  absence  that  the  measures 
which  he  favored  went  through,  one  by  one. 

See  Schouler,  Von  Hoist,  Rhodes,  Greeley,  Wilson,  and 
especially  Schurz'  Life  of  Clay,  and  Clay's  Works,  edited  by 
Colton. 

3.  This  refers  to  the  Nashville  Convention  of  June,  1850. 
See   Historical  Note  above.      See  also    Greeley's    Conflict, 
Rhodes,  and  Schouler. 

4.  Clay  here  expresses  his  regret  at  the  establishment  of  a 
sectional  paper  in  Washington,  and  at  other  influences  tending 
to  excite  sectional  feeling  ;  and  he  denies  that  Kentucky  was 
opposed  to  the  Compromises,  as  had  been  charged. 

5.  In  this  omission  of  considerable  length  Clay  describes 
the  appointment  and  work  of   the  Committee  of  Thirteen, 

*  Schurz'  Life  of  Clay -,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  355,  356. 


410  NOTES. 

making  a  plea  for  the  special  measures  recommended  by  its 
report.  See  Historical  Note,  p.  408.  He  speaks,  also,  of 
President  Taylor's  plan,  eulogizing  the  departed  President  but 
urging  the  necessity  of  a  territorial  government  for  New 
Mexico  and  Utah,  which  Taylor  would  have  deferred. 

6.  Clay  says  there  is  no  more  coercion  in  the  concession 
which  he  urges  than  in   the   numerous   treaties   which  the 
United  States  have  made  in  settling  the  Maine  boundary,  or 
in  coming  down  from  54°  40'  to  49°  in  Oregon.     These  trea- 
ties represent  mutual  and  reciprocal  concessions,  as  this  bill 
does,  which  contains  a  variety  of  provisions,  some  of  which  are 
approved  and  some  disapproved. 

7.  He  defends  the  "  Omnibus  Bill"  against  the  charge  of 
incongruity,  saying  that  it  was  not  that  the  bill  had  too  much, 
but  that  it  had  too  little,  it  was  not  the  variety  but  the  lack  of 
matter  in  the  bill  which  had  excited  the  opposition.     If  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  and  two  or  three  more  States  from  Texas  had 
been  in  the  bill,  certain  objectors  North  and  South  would  not 
have  spoken.      He  charges  the  opposition   to  the  bill  with 
greater  incongruity,  and  resents  the  insinuation  that  Senators 
of  opposite  parties  had  been  seen  in  consultation  over  the 
bill.    Men  like  Cass  and  Webster  were  in  harmony  as  passen- 
gers in  the  "  omnibus,"  and  among  these  passengers  were  no 
disunionists  and  Free  Soilers.     He  urges  that  the  Constitu- 
tion itself  was  a  compromise,  "  a  great,  a  memorable,  mag- 
nificent compromise,"  and  he  urges  upon  the  Northern  Sena- 
tors the  benefits  to  their  section  involved  in  certain  measures 
proposed.     He  repeats  Webster's  argument  as  to  the  improb- 
ability of  Slavery's  being  established  in  the  disputed  Terri- 
tories.    He  resents  a  remark  attributed  to  Senator  Davis,  of 
Massachusetts,  which  Davis  disclaimed,    that  New   Mexico 
would  be  advantageous  for  the  breeding  of  slaves.     Clay  held 
that  the  whole  charge  of  slave-breeding  was  false  and  ground- 


HENRY  CLAY.  41 1 

less.  He  then  makes  a  summary  of  the  advantages  to  the  two 
sections  to  be  derived  from  the  passage  of  the  Committee's 
proposals  ;  and  discusses  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  as 
to  slavery  ;  urges  upon  the  Southern  men  that  their  views  of 
their  constitutional  rights  in  the  Territories  may  be  errone- 
ous ;  discusses  the  probable  consequences  of  the  defeat  of 
these  measures,  urging  that  a  civil  war  would  break  out  be- 
tween Texas  and  New  Mexico,  and  that  if  the  United  States 
repelled  the  attack  of  Texas  on  New  Mexican  territory,  other 
slave  States  would  come  to  the  assistance  of  Texas,  and  the 
civil  conflict  might  spread  to  the  extent  of  involving  the 
sections  in  an  awful  war.  One  of  the  most  salutary  effects  of 
the  compromise  measures,  according  to  Clay,  would  be  the 
cessation  of  the  anti-slavery  agitation.  He  shows  to  his  own 
satisfaction  that  there  would  be  nothing  left  for  the  Abolition- 
ists to  agitate  about.  He  then  appeals  to  our  history  to  show 
that  after  the  storm  a  calm  is  sure  to  follow,  using  the  struggle 
over  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  an  illustration. 

8.  He  illustrates  the  same  line  of  thought  by  the  Tariff 
Compromise  of  1833. 

9.  Was  this  an  utterance  of  a  "low  ambition"?    See 

Phillips'  Speech,  p.  233. 

10.  Clay  here  makes  a  personal  appeal  to  some  of  his  fellow 
Senators,  especially  to  Senator  Mason,  of  Virginia,  whose  an- 
cestry he  eulogizes. 

11.  "  Like  an  electric  shock  the  word  thrilled  the  audience, 
and  volleys  of  applause  broke  forth  from  the  crowded  galle- 
ries."— Schurz'  Life  of  Clay,  vol.  ii.,  p.  357. 

12.  Can  it  be  doubted,  in  the  light  of  this  utterance  where 
Clay  would  have  stood  in  1861  ?    The  words  of  this  speech 
were  quoted  at  that  time  with  effect  upon  many  men  who  had 
for  years  followed  Clay's  political  fortunes. 


412  NOTES. 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

1.  For  sketch  of  Phillips,  see  p.  366. 

2.  This  speech  was  delivered    before  the   Massachusetts 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  Boston,  Mass.,  January  27,  1853.     The 
text  for  the  speech  is  found  in  the  resolution  with  which  it  is 
introduced  and  the  occasion  for  it  is  suggested  by  the  speech 
itself.     The  Abolitionists  had  been  derided  and  abused  by  re- 
spectable and  influential  men  ;  they  had  been  denounced  as  a 
hindrance  to  the  cause  which  they  professed  to  serve.     It  was 
yet  a  matter  of  reproach  and  embarrassment  among  the  "  in- 
fluential "  classes  to  be  known  as  an  Abolitionist.     Phillips 
thought  the  time  had  come  to  set  forth  the  historic  apology,  or 
defence,  for  the  cause  for  which  he  and  others  had  been  con- 
tending for  twenty  years.     This  is,  perhaps,  the  ablest  and 
most  exhaustive  of  Mr.  Phillips'  speeches,  and  the  one  of  most 
permanent  value.     Besides  being  a  fine  specimen  of  Phillips" 
eloquence  on  his  favorite  theme,  as  a  summary  of  the  course 
and  contention  of  the  Abolitionists  and  of  their  contribution 
to  the  anti-slavery  cause  the  speech  is  of  historical  impor- 
tance and  significance. 

3.  Phillips  here  engages  in  general  introductory  remarks, 
in  which  he  asserts  that  the  course  of  the  Abolitionists  had  been 
wise,  that  their  efforts  had  been  tested  by  time  and  approved 
by  success.     In  these  statements  he  lays  down  the  propositions 
which  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  speech  to  prove. 

4.  "Ion's"  article  in  the  London  Leader  was  copied,  in 
part,    into   the    Christian   Register  of    Boston,    a   Unitarian 
journal.     The  Register  did  not  copy  the  part  which  gave  a 
tribute  to  Garrison's  motives  and  character,  but  only  the  part 
which  questioned  his  charity  and  sagacity  and  criticised  his 
methods.     This    gives   Phillips    an    opportunity  publicly    to 


WENDELL   PHILLIPS.  413 

pillory  the  Register  as  an  illustration  of  the  rottenness  of  our 
politics  and  religion. 

5.  "  Ion  "  then  goes  on  to  say  : 

' '  This  is  a  defence  which  has  been  generally  accepted  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  many  are  the  Abolitionists  among  us 
whom  it  has  encouraged  in  honesty  and  impotence,  and  whom 
it  has  converted  into  conscientious  hinderances.  .  .  . 

"  We  would  have  Mr.  Garrison  to  say,  '  I  will  be  as  harsh 
as progr ess,  as  uncompromising  as  success.'  If  a  man  speaks 
for  his  own  gratification,  he  may  be  as  '  harsh '  as  he  pleases  ; 
but  if  he  speaks  for  the  down-trodden  and  oppressed,  he  must 
be  content  to  put  a  curb  upon  the  tongue  of  holiest  passion, 
and  speak  only  as  harshly  as  is  compatible  with  the  ameliora- 
tion of  the  evil  he  proposes  to  redress.  Let  the  question  be 
again  repeated  :  Do  you  seek  for  the  slave  vengeance  or 
redress  ?  If  you  seek  retaliation,  go  on  denouncing.  But 
distant  Europe  honors  William  Lloyd  Garrison  because  it 
credits  him  with  seeking  for  the  slave  simply  redress.  We  say, 
therefore,  that  '  uncompromising '  policy  is  not  to  be  measured 
by  absolute  justice,  but  by  practical  amelioration  of  the  slaves' 
condition.  Amelioration  as  fast  as  you  can  get  it,  absolute 
justice  as  soon  as  you  can  reach  it." 

"Ion"  quotes  the  sentiment  of  Confucius,  that  he  would 
choose  for  a  leader  "a  man  who  would  maintain  a  steady 
vigilance  in  the  direction  of  affairs,  who  was  capable  of  form- 
ing plans,  and  of  executing  them,"  and  says  : 

"  The  philosopher  was  right  in  placing  wisdom  and 
executive  capacity  above  courage  ;  for,  down  to  this  day,  our 
popular  movements  are  led  by  heroes  \vhofear  nothing,  and 
who  win  nothing.  .  .  . 

"  There  is  no  question  raised  in  these  articles  as  to  the  work 
to  be  done,  but  only  as  to  the  mode  of  really  doing  it.  The 
platform  resounds  with  announcements  of  principle,  which  is 


414  NOTES. 

but  asserting  the  right,  while  nothing  but  contempt  is  showered 
on  policy,  which  is  the  realization  of  right.  The  air  is  filled 
with  all  high  cries  and  spirited  denunciations  ;  indignation  is 
at  a  premium  ;  and  this  is  called  advocacy.  .  .  .  But  to 
calculate,  to  make  sure  of  your  aim,  is  to  be  decried  as  one 
who  is  too  cold  to  feel,  too  genteel  to  strike." 

Further  on,  "  Ion  "  observes  : 

"If  an  artillery  officer  throws  shell  after  shell  which  never 
reach  the  enemy,  he  is  replaced  by  some  one  with  a  better 
eye  and  a  surer  aim.  But  in  the  artillery  battle  of  opinion, 
to  mean  to  hit  is  quite  sufficient ;  and  if  you  have  a  certain 
grand  indifference  as  to  whether  you  hit  or  not,  you  may 
count  on  public  applause.  .  .  . 

"A  man  need  be  no  less  militant,  as  the  soldier  of  facts, 
than  as  the  agent  of  swords.  But  the  arena  of  argument 
needs  discipline,  no  less  than  that  of  arms.  It  is  this  which 
the  anti -slavery  party  seem  to  me  not  only  to  overlook,  but  to 
despise.  They  do  not  put  their  valor  to  drill.  Neither  on 
the  field  nor  the  platform  has  courage  any  inherent  capacity  of 
taking  care  of  itself." 

"Ion"  then  proceeds  to  make  a  quotation  from  Mr. 
Emerson,  as  follows:  "Let  us  withhold  every  reproachful, 
and,  if  we  can,  every  indignant  remark.  In  this  cause,  we 
must  renounce  our  temper,  and  the  risings  of  pride.  If  there 
be  any  man  who  thinks  the  ruin  of  a  race  of  men  a  small 
matter  compared  with  the  last  decorations  and  completions  of 
his  own  comfort,  who  would  not  so  much  as  part  with  his  ice- 
cream to  save  them  from  rapine  and  manacles, — I  think  I 
must  not  hesitate  to  satisfy  that  man  also  that  his  cream 
and  vanilla  are  safer  and  cheaper  by  placing  the  negro  nation 
on  a  fair  footing  than  by  robbing  them.  If  the  Virginian 
piques  himself  on  the  picturesque  luxury  of  his  vassalage, 
on  the  heavy  Ethiopian  manners  of  his  house-servants, 
their  silent  obedience,  their  hue  of  bronze,  their  turbaned 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  415 

heads,  and  would  not  exchange  them  for  a  more  intelligent 
but  precarious  hired  services  of  whites,  I  shall  not  refuse  to 
show  him  that,  when  their  free  papers  are  made  out,  it  will 
still  be  their  interest  to  remain  on  his  estates  ;  and  that  the 
oldest  planters  of  Jamaica  are  convinced  that  it  is  cheaper  to 
pay  wages  than  to  own  slaves." 

The  critic  takes  exception  to  Mr.  Garrison's  approval  of  the 
denunciatory  language  in  which  Daniel  O'Connell  rebuked  the 
giant  sin  of  America,  and  concludes  his  article  with  this 
sentence  : 

"  When  William  Lloyd  Garrison  praises  the  great  Celtic 
monarch  of  invective  for  this  dire  outpouring,  he  acts  the 
part  of  the  boy  who  fancies  that  the  terror  is  in  the  war-whoop 
of  the  savage,  unmindful  of  the  quieter  muskets  of  the 
civilized  infantry,  whose  unostentatious  execution  blows  whoop 
and  tomahawk  to  the  Devil." 

Speaking  of  Emerson,  Phillips  does  not  regard  him  as 
endorsing  the  criticisms  of  the  Abolitionists,  and  he  gives  a 
generous  recognition  of  Emerson's  services  to  the  anti-slavery 
cause. 

6.  The  figure  is  from  Isaiah  Ivi  :  10.      "  His  watchmen  are 
blind  ;  they  are  all  ignorant.     They  are  all  dumb  dogs,  they 
cannot  bark  ;  sleeping,  lying  down,  loving  to  slumber." 

7.  Sympathizers  with  ' '  Ion  "  pretend  that  the  anti-slavery 
movement  has  been  mere   fanaticism.     This  they  assert    in 
order  to  justify  their  indifference  or  hostility.     Their  change 
to  some  degree  of  favor,  they  explain,  is  because  the  move- 
ment is  now  fostered  by  men  of   thoughtful  minds  and  fair 
dispositions.     Phillips  claimed  that  the  converts,  neither  by 
their  charity,  sagacity,  nor  culture,  had  struck  out  any  new 
method  of    reaching  the    public    mind,    originated    a    new 
argument  or  discovered  a  new  fact. 


416  NOTES. 

8.  These  passages  on  Webster  and  Clay  offer  a  good  subject 
for  historical  criticism.     What  were  the  relative  moral  merits 
of  the  two  Statesmen  and  their  unsparing  critic  ?    See  the 
passage  from  Clay,  p.  210. 

9.  Haynau  was  an  Austrian  general  in  the  war  of  the  Hung- 
arian revolution  of  1848-9,  who  suppressed  the  insurgents  with 
a  cruel  and  ruthless  hand.     Hungary  lost  all  independence  and 
all  constitutional   freedom  and  sank   for  a  short  time  into  a 
vassal  province  of  Austria.     It  was  at  this  time  that  Kossuth 
fled.     See   M tiller's  Political  History  of  Recent    Times •,  pp. 
243-246. 

10.  Phillips  here  arraigns  the  "  leading  men  "  for  counting 
on  the  prejudices  of   the  majority,  expecting  to  cajole  the 
Present.     "  Their  only  fear  is  the  judgment  of  the  Future. 
Our  only  hold  upon  them  is  the  thought  of  that  bar  of  pos- 
terity, before  which  we  are  all  to  stand.     Thank  God  !  there 
is  the  army  of  honest  men  to  come.     Before  that  jury  we 
summon  you." 

11.  Phillips  here  speaks  with  sarcasm  of  the  strange  change 
which  death  produces  in   the  way   a  man  is  talked  about, 
evidently  having  Webster  and  Clay  still  in  mind.     "  Their 
friends  rake  up  every  word  they  ever  contrived  to  whisper  in 
a  corner  for  liberty,  and  parade  it  before  the  world.     When 
their  friends  bury  them,  they  feel  what  bitter  mockery,  fifty 
years  hence,  any  epitaph  will  be,  if  it  cannot  record  of  one 
living  in  this  era  some  service  rendered  to  the  slaves." 

12.  Was  this  sufficient  defence  for  his  denunciation  of  Web- 
ster and  Clay  ? 

13.  For  account  of  Lundy's  work,  see  Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall 
of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  i. 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  417 

14.  Adams  while  a  member  of  the  United  States  Senate  had 
supported  the  Non-Importation  Act  and  the  Embargo,  in  1807- 
1808,  and  had  broken  with  the  Federalist  party  in  support  of 
Jefferson's   administration.      The    Massachusetts   Legislature 
admistered  a  rebuke  by  electing  his  successor  a  year  before 
Adams'  time  expired,  and  passed  resolutions  strongly  con- 
demning the  Embargo.     This  was  practically  asking  Adams 
to  resign,  which  he  did.     Morse  says  many  descendants  of  the 
old  Federalists  in  Massachusetts  "still  cherish  the  ancestral 
prejudice."    See  Morse's  Life  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  pp.  57,  58. 

15.  See  Note  9  on  Sumner's  speech,  p.  428. 

1 6.  The  omission  contains  a  few  sentences  in  further  tribute 
to  Rantoul. 

17.  This  refers  to  Sumner's  speech  on  the  Repeal  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law.     See  p.  268. 

1 8.  An  omitted  paragraph  gives  recognition  of  the  services 
to  the  anti-slavery  cause  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings. 

19.  The  omission  includes  a  few  lines  more  on  the  influence 
of  the  church  organizations.     The  individual  member  who  was 
independent  of  them  was  rare.     "  The  Methodist  priesthood 
brings  the  Catholic  very  vividly  to  mind." 

20.  In  two  paragraphs  omitted  here  Phillips  claims  that  J. 
Q.  Adams  and  Christian  bodies  in  Great  Britain  endorsed  this 
policy  toward  the  Church.     He  mentions,  also,  the  services  of 
the  Abolitionists  in  pressing  upon  the  attention  of  the  country 
the  facts  and  suggestions  coming  from  British  Emancipation 
in  the  West  Indies. 

21.  He  continues  to  discuss  at  some  length  the  Abolitionists* 
conduct  toward  the  Church,  attempting  their  justification.    He 
criticises  the  attitude  of  Lyman  Beecher,  and  quotes  Mr.  Piils- 

VOL.  II. — 27 


41 8  NOTES. 

bury,  an  Abolitionist,  who  said  that  the  theatres  would  receive 
the  gospel  of  anti-slavery  truth  earlier  than  the  churches  ;  con- 
siders the  influence  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  in  the  story  and  on 
the  stage  ;  and  quotes  at  length  from  Dr.  Channing's  expres- 
sive appreciation  of  the  services  of  the  Abolitionists.  See 
Phillips'  Speeches,  vol.  i.,  pp.  126-134. 

22.  Compare  with  Burke's  remark  that  '*  prudence  is  the 
highest  of  political  virtues." 

23.  He  appeals  to  his  audience  to  stand  by  Garrison,  "  to 
do  nothing  to  weaken  his  influence  "  ;  and  he  asserts  that  for 
practical  purposes  Abolitionists  and  other  anti-slavery  men  are 
at  one. 

24.  This  refers  to  the  speech  of  Sumner  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
which  Phillips  is  comparing  in  spirit  with  the  one  made  in  the 
Senate.     See  Summer's  Works,  vol.  iii.     The  omission  here 
contains  a  brief  criticism  of  Sumner's  Fugitive  Slave  Speech, 
in  that  it  contained  "  no  protest  against  the  surrender  itself." 
44  It  was  under  no  such  uncertain  trumpet  that  the  anti-slavery 
host  was  originally  marshalled." 

25.  Phillips  here  engages  in  criticism  of  Mann,  Sumner, 
Giddings,  and  the  Free  Soilers  for  their  inconsistency,  as  he 
saw  it,  of  professing  loyalty  to  the  "  higher  law  "  while  swear- 
ing to  support  the  Constitution  which  sustains  slavery  4t  where 
it  is."     He  quotes  the  Free  Soil  position,  as  voiced  by  Sumner 
and  Giddings,  to  the  effect  that  it  would  be  sufficient  if  the 
National  Government  would  withdraw  itself  from  all  participa- 
tion in  support  of  slavery.     This  ultimatum  would  not  satisfy 
Phillips.     If  there  was  a  conflict  between  the  "  higher  law" 
and  the  Constitution  Phillips  insisted  upon  the  repudiation  of 
the  Constitution. 

16.  Consider  the  effect  of  this  position  upon  the  South. 


WENDELL  PHILLIPS.  419 

27.  Was  this  the  feeling  of  the  South  in  1861  ?    Was  there 
reason  for  their  feeling  so  ? 

28.  He  continues  to  combat  the  doctrine  of  Giddings  ;  refers 
to  J.  Q.  Adams'  speech  against  Giddings'  view,  ten  years  be- 
fore, in  reply  to  Ingersoll.     "  Whoever,  therefore,  lays  the 
flattering  unction  to  his  soul,  that,  while  slavery  exists  any- 
where  in  the  United  States,  our  legislators  will  sit  down  like  a 
band  of  brothers — unless  they  are  all  slave-holding  brothers — 
is  doomed  to  find  himself  wofully  mistaken."     He  held  that 
it  was  "impossible  for  free  States  and  slave  States  to  unite 
under  any  form  of  Constitution,  no  matter  how  clean  the 
parchment  may  be,  without   the  compact  resulting  in   new 
strength  to  the  slave  system.    It  is  the  unimpaired  strength  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  York  and  the  youthful  vigor  of  Ohio 
that  even  now  enables  bankrupt  Carolina  to  hold  up  the  insti- 
tution."     Phillips  was,  therefore,  opposed  to  a  union  with 
slave-holders ;  and  he  held  that  the  common  government  of 
the  States  must  be  used  in  behalf  of  the  slaves. 

29.  He  quotes  Milton,  indicating  how  their  Northern  states- 
men shrink  to  pygmean  forms  when  they  go  to  Washington. 
He  extols  and  criticises  Sumner.     "It  is  not  his  honor  nor 
mine  that  is  at  issue  ;  nor  his  feeling  nor  mine  that  is  to  be 
consulted.     .     .     .     Truth,   success,   victory,    triumph    over 
the  obstacles  that  beset  us, — this  is  all  either  of  us  wants." 

30.  He  indulges  in  another  brief  fling  at  Webster. 

31.  Phillips  cites  an  example  to  show  that  Americans  travel- 
ling abroad  are  beset  by  inquiries  about  the  progress  of  eman- 
cipation.    There  was  no  rest  from  the  agitation. 

32.  He  here  urges  as  a  proof  of  the  statesmanship  and  sagacity 
of  the  Abolitionists,  that  they  "  had  taken  the  country  by  the 


420  NOTES. 

four  comers,  and  shaken  it  until  you  can  hear  nothing  but 
slavery." 

33.  This  suggests  an  interesting  question  for  argumentation : 
Was  Garrison  a  statesman  ? 

34.  Did  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  lead  the  slavery  cause  to  ruin  ? 


CHARLES  SUMNER. 

i.  Charles  Sumner  was  born  in  Boston,  Massachusetts, 
January  6,  1811.  He  entered  Harvard  in  1826  and  gradu- 
ated in  1830.  He  devoted  himself  for  another  year  to  reading 
and  study.  His  first  interest  in  public  affairs  was  excited  by 
the  Anti-Masonic  movement,  which  he  held  to  be  a  "great  and 
good  cause."  In  1831  he  entered  the  Harvard  Law  School, 
where  he  became  a  student  of  Judge  Joseph  Story.  Story 
became  very  much  attached  to  Sumner  and  was  his  friend 
throughout  life.  At  this  time  Sumner  was  six  feet  two 
inches  high  and  weighed  120  pounds.  He  was  not  per- 
sonally attractive,  but  his  intellectual  industry  and  his 
memory  were  something  extraordinary.  Sumner  became  in- 
terested very  early  in  the  anti-slavery  movement,  was  a  sub- 
scriber to  the  Liberator  in  its  early  years,  and  was  a  friend  of 
Phillips,  Garrison,  and  Channing.  He  spent  the  years  from 
1837  to  1840  abroad,  studying  diligently  and  observing  care- 
fully, in  London,  Paris,  Rome,  Berlin,  and  other  European 
centres.  In  1841,  Sumner  upheld  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to 
stop  any  suspected  slaver  to  ascertain  whether  she  had  the 
right  to  carry  the  American  flag,  and  he  condemned  Webster's 
correspondence  on  the  *'  Creole  Case."  During  this  time,  and 
up  to  1848,  Sumner  was  a  Whig ;  John  Quincy  Adams  was 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  421 

the  statesman  whom  he  most  admired.  Though  much  inter- 
ested in  the  slavery  agitation,  he  had  not  much  interest  in 
other  questions  of  national  politics.  On  July  4,  1845,  he  de- 
livered a  notable  oration  before  the  civil  authorities  of  Boston 
on  "  The  True  Grandeur  of  Nations  " — a  plea  for  peace  and 
a  denunciation  of  war.  His  first  anti-slavery  speech  was  made 
November  4,  1845,  against  the  admission  of  Texas.  Sumner 
was  not  a  Garrisonian  Abolitionist,  but  he  held,  as  we  see 
from  the  speech  in  this  volume,  that  the  Constitution  was  an 
instrument  of  national  liberty  and  must  be  so  construed  as  to 
make  slavery  sectional  and  freedom  national. 

In  September,  1846,  at  the  Whig  State  Convention,  Sumner 
spoke  on  "  The  Anti-Slavery  Duties  of  the  Whig  Party."  He 
sent  a  copy  of  this  speech  to  Webster  and  tried  to  induce  that 
statesman  to  become  the  leader  of  the  Whigs  as  an  Anti-Slavery 
party  which  Webster  politely  declined  to  do.  Sumner  opposed 
the  Mexican  War,  and  in  a  public  letter  to  Robert  C.  Winthrop, 
then  a  representative  in  Congress  from  Boston,  he  severely 
censured  that  gentleman  for  his  vote  in  support  of  the  war. 
In  September,  1847,  Sumner  made  his  last  Whig  speech,  in 
support  of  a  resolution  at  the  Whig  State  Convention,  that 
Massachusetts  Whigs  should  support  only  an  anti-slavery  man 
for  the  presidency.  The  resolution  was  lost,  and,  on  the 
nomination  of  General  Taylor,  Sumner,  John  A.  Andrew,  E. 
Rockwood  Hoar,  Charles  Francis  Adams,  and  others  withdrew 
from  the  Whig  party  and  formed  the  Free  Soil  party.  "  On 
the  5th  of  November,  1850,  his  speech  after  the  passage  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  was  like  a  war-cry  for  the  Free  Soil  party 
and  was  said  to  have  made  him  Senator."*  He  was  elected 
senator  by  a  combination  of  Democrats  and  Free  Setters, 
against  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  after  a  long  contest  in  the  Legis- 
lature. He  refused  to  modify  his  public  utterances  in  order 

*  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography. 


422  NOTES. 

to  get  votes,  and  he  went  to  the  Senate  as  uncompromising  an 
opponent  of  slavery  as  Calhoun  was  its  uncompromising  advo- 
cate. The  speech  of  our  text  was  his  first  notable  effort  in  the 
Senate  and  it  secured  for  Sumner  a  front  rank  among  the 
national  anti-slavery  leaders.  From  this  time  forward  to  the 
end  of  the  conflict  Sumner  was  recognized  as  the  "  most  un- 
sparing, the  most  feared,  and  the  most  hated  opponent  of 
slavery  in  Congress.  After  the  brutal  assault  upon  him  by 
Brooks,  May  20,  1856,  and  his  re-election  to  the  Senate  Janu- 
ary 13,  1857,  Sumner  was  absent  four  years  from  the  Senate 
Chamber  under  medical  treatment  in  Europe.  He  returned 
to  his  seat  in  the  Senate  in  1860,  and  in  the  notable  session  of 
1860-61  he  was  a  strong  opponent  of  any  form  of  compromise. 
After  the  withdrawal  of  the  Southern  Senators,  Sumner  became 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  His  speech 
on  the  'Trent  Affair,'  January  9,  1862,  is  one  of  his  ablest 
productions  and  placed  the  surrender  of  Mason  and  Slidell  on 
the  most  acceptable  ground, — on  principles  always  maintained 
by  the  United  States.  Sumner  opposed  Johnson's  reconstruc- 
tion policy  and  favored  the  President's  impeachment.  In  1870 
he  opposed  President  Grant's  policy  of  acquiring  Santo  Do^ 
mingo.  This  led  to  a  rupture  with  the  President  and  his  Re- 
publican colleagues  in  the  Senate  and  the  latter  displaced  him 
from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee. 
With  Senators  Trumbull,  Schurz,  and  Fenton,  Sumner  became 
an  Anti-Grant  Republican  in  1872  and  supported  Horace 
Greeley  for  the  presidency.  Thereafter  he  pursued  an  in- 
dependent course  in  politics  until  his  death,  March  n,  1874. 

"Among  American  statesmen  Sumner's  life  especially  illus- 
trates the  truth  he  early  expressed,  that  politics  is  but  the 
application  of  moral  principles  to  public  affairs.  Throughout 
his  public  career  he  was  the  distinctive  representative  of  the 
moral  conviction  and  political  purpose  of  New  England.  His 
ample  learning  and  varied  accomplishments  were  rivalled 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  423 

among  American  public  men  only  by  those  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  during  all  the  fury  of  political  passion  in  which 
he  lived  there  was  never  a  whisper  or  suspicion  of  his  political 
honesty  or  his  personal  integrity.  His  profound  conviction, 
supreme  conscientiousness,  indomitable  will,  affluent  resources, 
and  inability  to  compromise,  his  legal  training,  serious  temper, 
and  untiring  energy,  were  indispensable  in  the  final  stages  of 
the  slavery  controversy,  and  he  had  them  all  in  the  highest 
degree.  '  There  is  no  other  side,'  he  said  to  a  friend  with 
fervor,  and  Cromwell's  Ironsides  did  not  ride  into  the  fight 
more  absolutely  persuaded  that  they  were  doing  the  will  of 
God  than  was  Charles  Sumner  in  the  anti-slavery  conflict."  * 

2.  Historical  Note  : 

The  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  signed  by  President  Fillmore,  Sep- 
tember 18,  1850,  was  a  part  of  the  original  "  Omnibus  Bill  " 
and  was  one  of  the  essential  features  of  the  compromise  meas- 
ures. Its  chief  provisions  may  be  summarized  as  follows  : 

1.  The  powers  of  the  judges  under  the  act  of  1793  were 
given  to  United  States  Commissioners.     These  might  be  in- 
creased by  the  United  States  Courts  to  afford  ample  facilities 
for  the  arrest  of  fugitives. 

2.  The   Commissioners  were  to  have  concurrent  jurisdic- 
tion with  United  States  judges  in  giving  certificates  to  claim- 
ants and  ordering  the  removal  of  fugitives. 

3.  United  States  Marshalls  and  Deputies  were  required  to 
execute   writs  under  the  act   under  penalty   of  $1000.     The 
Marshall  was  liable   for   the   full   value  of  the  slave  in  his 
custody  ;  the  officers  were  empowered  to  call  the  bystanders  to 
help  execute  writs,  and  all  citizens  were  required  to  aid  when 
called. 

*  See  Appleton's  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography.  The 
sketch  in  this  Cyclopaedia  was  prepared  by  George  William 
Curtis. 


424 


NOTES, 


4.  On  affidavit  of  a  claimant  the  Court  or  Commissioner 
might  give  him  a  certificate  of  authority  to  remove  his  fugitive 
slave.     In  no  case  was  the  testimony  of  the  fugitive  to  be  ad- 
mitted, the  certificate  being  conclusive  evidence  of  the  claim- 
ant's title.     This  cut  off  the  privilege  of  habeas  corpus  from 
the  fugitive.     No  process  could  be  issued  by  judge,  court,  or 
magistrate,  to  obstruct  the  owner. 

5.  The  fee  of  the  Commissioner  was  $10.00  when  a  certifi- 
cate of  ownership  was  granted,  $5.00  when  it  was  denied. 

6.  Obstructing    arrest,    attempting   a  rescue,    harboring   a 
slave,  were  punishable  by  imprisonment  for  six  months,  a  fine 
of  $1000,  and  civil  damages  of  $1000  to  the  claimant. 

7.  On  affidavit  by  a  claimant  that  he  feared  a  rescue,  the 
Marshall  was  not  to  surrender  the  fugitive  to  the  claimant,  but 
was  to  take  him  to  the  State  line  whence  he  escaped,  employ- 
ing all  necessary  force.     This  made  the  United  States  the 
direct  carrier  of  the  slave  and  responsible  for  his  return. 

"  The  mere  statement  of  the  provisions  of  this  law,"  says 
Rhodes,  ' '  is  its  condemnation.  It  was  a  maxim  among  Roman 
lawyers  that  if  a  question  arose  about  the  civil  status  of  an  in- 
dividual, he  was  presumed  to  be  free  until  proved  to  be  a 
slave.  The  burden  of  proof  lay  on  the  master,  the  benefit  or 
the  doubt  was  on  the  side  of  the  weaker  party.  Under  this 
act  of  ours  the  negro  had  no  chance  ;  the  meshes  of  the  law 
•were  artfully  contrived  to  aid  the  master  and  entrap  the  slave. 
It  seems  amazing  that  recent  legislation  in  Christian  America 
on  this  vital  point  went  backward  from  pagan  Rome,  and  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  portray  the  spirit  of  the  time  in  a  manner 
that  shall  enable  us  to  make  allowance  for  the  men  who  passed 
this  act." — History  of  the  United  States ;  vol.  i.,  p.  186. 

The  enforcement  of  this  law  was  a  difficult  matter  in  the 
North  and  notable  instances  of  resistance  soon  occurred.  The 
rescue  of  Shadrach  and  the  rendition  of  Sims  in  Boston,  the 
"  Jerry  Rescue  "  in  Syracuse,  New  York,  the  Gorsuch  Case  in 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  425 

Pennsylvania,  all  of  these,*  which  had  occurred  before  the 
time  for  Sumner's  speech,  had  aroused  opposition  and  excite- 
ment. Public  meetings  had  been  held  and  resolutions  passed 
denouncing  the  act.  Emerson  voiced  the  feeling  of  the 
Abolitionists  when  he  said  :  "  The  act  of  Congress  of  Septem- 
ber 18,  1850,  is  a  law  which  every  one  of  you  will  break  on  the 
earliest  occasion, — a  law  which  no  man  can  obey,  or  abet  the 
obeying,  without  loss  of  self-respect  and  forfeiture  of  the  name 
of  a  gentleman." 

When  Sumner's  term  in  the  Senate  began,  March  4,  1851, 
the  Compromise  measures  had  become  law,  and  the  leaders 
and  politicians  of  both  parties  were  seeking  to  quiet  agitation 
and  discussion,  and  to  have  the  country  accept  the  compro- 
mises, the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  included,  as  a  "  finality."  In  the 
long  session  of  the  Senate,  1851-1852,  the  first  of  Mr.  Sumner's 
service,  he  waited  a  long  time  in  vain  for  an  opportunity  to 
speak  in  opposition  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  He  had 
spoken  vigorously  in  opposition  to  this  law  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
Boston,  in  November,  1850,!  a  speech  which,  his  opponents 
said,  encouraged  violence  and  resistance  to  the  law.  It  was 
the  policy  of  the  upholders  of  slavery  and  of  the  compromises 
to  prevent  Sumner's  addressing  the  Senate  on  this  subject. 
The  session  of  Congress  was  devoid  of  interest,  devoted  chiefly 
to  president  making.  On  May  26,  1852,  Sumner  presented  a 
memorial  from  the  Society  of  Friends  in  New  England,  pray- 
ing for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  The  memorial 
was  laid  on  the  table  and  Sumner's  plea  that  he  should  be 
heard  went  unheeded.  On  July  2yth  he  offered  a  resolution 
**  instructing  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  to  report  a  bill 
for  immediate  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act. "  On  the  28th 
he  made  an  earnest  plea  for  a  hearing.  He  said  :  ' '  For  the 

*  See  Rhodes'  United  States  History,  vol.  i.,  ch.  3. 

f  For  this  speech  see  SumnerS*  Works \  vol.  ii. ,  pp.  378-424. 


426  NOTES. 

sake  of  these  constituents,  for  my  own  sake,  I  now  desire  to 
be  heard.  Make  such  disposition  of  my  resolution  afterward 
as  to  you  shall  seem  best ;  visit  upon  me  any  degree  of  criticism, 
censure,  or  displeasure  ;  but  do  not  refuse  me  a  hearing. 
'Strike,  but  hear.'"  An  interesting  debate  followed  on  this 
request,  but  the  Senate  refused  to  consider  the  resolution  by  a 
vote  of  32  to  10.  "  Want  of  time,"  *'  danger  to  the  Union," 
"lateness  of  the  session,"  were  the  chief  reasons  urged. 

But  Sumner  was  determined  to  be  heard.  His  opportunity 
came  on  August  26th,  only  four  days  before  the  adjournment 
of  Congress.  The  circumstances  introducing  the  speech  are 
indicated  on  the  opening  page  of  the  Speech,  p.  Sumner's 
motion  was  clearly  in  order  and  it  opened  the  whole  question. 
"  Before  speaking,  he  was  approached  by  several  who  asked 
Aim  to  give  up  his  purpose,  or  at  least,  if  he  spoke,  not  to 
divide  the  Senate.  To  all  he  replied,  that,  God  willing,  he 
should  speak,  and  would  press  the  question  to  a  vote,  if  he 
were  left  alone."  * 

For  several  months  Whigs  and  Democrats  had  been  casting 
the  charge  of  sectionalism  against  any  one  who  ventured  to 
speak  publicly  against  slavery.  Sumner  had  been  attempting 
to  turn  this  party  charge  against  his  opponents.  He  had 
announced  that  "freedom,  not  slavery,  is  national  ;  while 
slavery  not  freedom,  is  sectional."  This  expression  was  the 
shibboleth  of  his  party,  and  it  expresses  the  main  subject  and 
purpose  of  this  speech. 

3.  Sumner  here  quotes  Mississippi  and  Kentucky  decisions 
to  show  that  slavery  exists  only  by  local  law. 

4.  In  this  omission,  of  considerable  length,  Sumner  sets 
forth  the  principles  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution, 
by  which  he  contended  that  the  Constitution  nowhere  sup- 

*  Edition  of  Sumner  s  Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  89. 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  427 

ported  slavery  ;  that  it  was  an  anti-slavery  document.  Sum- 
ner's  position  was  that  slavery  could  be  successfully  opposed, 
restricted,  and  finally  abolished,  on  constitutional  grounds. 
The  matters  which  he  brought  forward,  as  in  favor  of  freedom, 
were  :  i.  The  preamble.  2.  Contemporaneous  declarations, 
in  the  Convention  of  1787.  3.  The  Constitution  is  to  be  con- 
strued as  a  whole,  and  ' '  The  grand  political  acts  of  the  nation 
are  to  be  construed  together  "  ;  these  committed  the  nation  to 
freedom.  4.  "In  any  question  under  the  Constitution  every 
word  must  be  construed  in  favor  of  liberty."  5.  "  The  Consti- 
tution acts  upon  slaves  as  persons,  not  as  property," — quoted 
from  Justice  McLean,  in  the  case  of  Groves  et  al.  vs.  Slaughter 
(15  Peters,  507,  508). 

5.  He  quotes  from  Washington  in  favor  of  emancipation, 
and  in  favor  of  a  society  to  promote  that  end. 

6.  In  this  omission  of  several  pages  Sumner  shows  that  the 
churches,  colleges,  and  literature  of  the  land  joined  in  the 
national  condemnation  of  slavery  at  the  time  of  the  formation 
of  the  Constitution.     The  discussions  in  the  State  Conven- 
tions which  adopted  the  Constitution  showed  the  same  senti- 
ment against  slavery.     He  appeals  to  the  tenth  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  as  a  protection  to  the  people  against  "  all 
assumptions  of  the  National  government  in  derogation  of  free- 
dom."    No  law  of  the  Federal  Government  extending  beyond 
the  power  granted  by  the   Constitution  could  be  binding. 
Sumner  held  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  to  be  such.     "  No  power 
had  been  delegated  to  Congress  to  make  a  slave  or  support  a 
system  of  slavery." 

7.  In  the  way  of  historical  criticism  the  student  will  be  in- 
terested in  examining  these  passages  from  Sumner  in  connec- 
tion with  opinions  from  certain  historical  writers.     Was  the 
fugitive  slave  clause  essential  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 


428  NOTES. 

tion  ?  Was  it,  at  the  time,  looked  upon  as  an  important  feature 
of  the  compromises  of  that  instrument  ?  Elaine  says  :  "  If  it 
had  not  been  agreed  that  fugitives  from  service  should  be 
returned  to  their  owners,  the  Thirteen  States  would  not  have 
been  able  in  1787  '  to  form  a  more  perfect  union.'" — Twenty 
Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i.,  p.  I.  Rhodes  says  :  "  It  is  un- 
questionable that  this  stipulation  (Fugitive  Slave  clause)  was 
necessary  for  the  adoption  and  acceptance  of  the  Constitu- 
tion."— History  of  United  States  Since  sSjo. 

In  historical  criticism  on  this  subject  the  student  should 
consult,  in  addition  to  the  foregoing  passages  from  Sumner, 

Curtis'  History  of  the  Constitution,  vol.  ii.,  p.  451. 

Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.,  p.  773. 

Stephens'  War  Between  the  States,  vol.  i.,  p.  202. 

Professor  Alexander  Johnston  in  The  New  Princeton  Review, 
vol.  iv.,  p.  183. 

Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  v.,  pp.  487,  492,  550,  553  ;  vol.  iv., 
pp.  176,  286. 

The  Decision  in  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania,  cited  in  Thayer's 
Cases  on  Constitutional  Law,  vol.  i.,  pp.  476-479. 

8.  For  the  circumstances  leading  to  the  enactment  of  the 
first  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  of  1793,  see  Rhodes'  History  of  the 
United  States,  vol.  i.,  p.  24. 

9.  In  the  decision  in  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania  the  Supreme 
Court  held  that  the  rendition  of  the  fugitive  slave  was  a 
national  function.    In  1826  Pennsylvania  passed  an  act  to  pre- 
vent kidnapping,  and  extended  its  provisions  to  fugitive  slaves 
who  had  taken  refuge  in  that  State.    The  act  provided  a  mode 
for  the  rendition  of  fugitives,  and  forbade  any  other  mode  as 
a  felony.     In  1832  Prigg,  an  agent  for  a  Maryland  slave- 
owner, claimed  a  negro  woman  in  Pennsylvania  as  a  slave. 
The  claim  being  denied  by  the  local  magistrate,  Prigg  carried 
the  woman  off  by  force.     He  was  tried  and  convicted  of  kid- 


CHARLES  SUMMER.  429 

napping  in  York  County,  Pennsylvania,  voluntarily  submitting 
to  judgment  in  order  to  get  the  case  as  a  test  before  the 
Supreme  Court.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  affirmed 
the  judgment  of  the  lower  court,  and  Prigg  appealed  the  case 
to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  The  decision  of  this 
Court  set  forth  the  following  points  : 

1.  Congress  has  the  exclusive  right  to  legislate  concerning 
the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves. 

2.  In  the  presence  of  such  legislation  by  Congress  the  States 
have  no  right  to  legislate  either  in  aid  of  or  against  rendition. 
Pennsylvania's  law  was,  therefore,  void. 

3.  The  right  of  the  owner  to  recapture  his  slave  was  given 
by  the  Constitution  without  restriction,  where  he  could  do  so 
without  violence  or  breach  of  the  peace.     This  led  to  State 
restrictions,  Personal  Liberty  Laws,  guarding  the  peace  and 
protecting  the  citizen  against  violence. 

4.  The  United  States  could  not  compel  State  Courts  to 
enforce  United  States  laws  by  State  magistrates,  as  the  law  of 
1793  assumed  to  do,  but  must  depend  upon  its  own  courts  and 
officers.     This  left  the  old  law  ineffective,  while  indicating 
that  a  more  efficient  law  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves 
would  be  constitutional.     See  Supreme  Court  Decision,  cited 
in  the  text  of  the  speech  ;  Schouler's  United  States  History, 
vol.  iv.,  pp.  428-429  ;  Thayer's  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law, 
vol.  i. 

10.  Sumner  here  quotes  from  the  Life  of  Story  to  sustain 
his  contention  on  this  point.  He  also  quotes  from  President 
Jackson,  in  his  memorable  veto,  in  1832,  of  the  2d  United 
States  Bank.  To  Jackson's  opinion  was  opposed  a  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  Jackson's  famous  position  was  that 
"  each  public  officer  who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  understands  it,  and 
not  as  it  is  understood  by  others."  Sumner's  conclusion  was 


430 


NOTES. 


that  ' '  the  early  legislation  of  Congress  and  the  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court  cannot  stand  in  our  way." 

11.  Sumner  argues  at  some  length,  in  the  omission,  that  no 
power  had  been   delegated  to  Congress  to  legislate  on  the 
subject  of  fugitive  slaves  ;   that  the  fugitive  slave  clause  of  the 
Constitution   was  merely  an  article  of   compact  without  an 
accompanying  grant  of  power.     He  argued  from  Article  IV., 
Section  I,  of  the  Constitution  :  "  Full  Faith  and  Credit  shall 
be  given  in  each  State  to  the  public  Acts,  Records,  and  judi- 
cial proceedings  of  every  other  State."     If  the   article  had 
contained  only  so  much,  as  some  in  the  Convention  favored 
limiting  it,  it  would  have  been  merely  a  matter  of  compact, 
and  Congress  would  not  have  had  power  in  the  matter.     But 
the  article  continues  :  "  And  the  Congress  may  by  general 
laws  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such  Acts,  Records,  and 
Proceedings  shall  be  proved  and  the  effect  thereof."     No  such 
grant  of  power  accompanied  the  fugitive  slave  clause.     To 
sustain  Sumner's  argument  on  this  point  one  must  accept  the 
compact  theory  as  to  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  a  theory 
which  the  Supreme  Court  decision  in  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania 
had  discarded  and  denied.    It  was  for  this  reason,  chiefly,  that 
Chief-Justice  Taney  had  dissented  from  that  decision. 

12.  He  quotes  Jefferson,  in  the  familiar  language  of  the 
Resolutions  of  1798,  defining  the  General  Government  as  a 
compact,  of  certain  definite  powers,  and  asserting  that  when- 
ever it  "  assumed  undelegated  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthori- 
tative,  void  and  of  no  force."     It  is  interesting  to  observe 
how  the  anti-slavery  Free  Soilers  and  Republicans,  in  order 
to  save  themselves  from   national  legislation  in   support  of 
slavery,  fell  back  on  the  compact  theory  of  the  government 
and  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States. 

13.  In  the  omission,  of  considerable  length,  Sumner  quotes 
precedents  and  decisions,  discusses  the  nature  of  common  law, 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  431 

referring  to  English  precedents  and  endeavors  to  show  that  a 
claim  for  a  fugitive  slave  was  embraced  in  that  class  of  judicial 
proceedings. 

14.  Sumner  quotes  at  length  Colonial  and  Revolutionary 
declarations  against  the  Stamp  Act.     That  unconstitutional 
measure  "  was  welcomed  in  the  Colonies  by  the  Tories  of  that 
day  precisely  as  the  unconstitutional  Slave  Act  is  welcomed  by 
large  and  imperious   numbers  among  us."     But  patriotism 
resisted  it.     He  quotes  Pitt,  who  "  rejoiced  that  America  had 
resisted,"  and  urged  that  the  Stamp  Act  be  repealed,  abso- 
lutely,  totally,    and   immediately."     This  line   of   Sumner's 
argument  was  to  justify  the  anti-slavery  resistance  to  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  Law  which  had  been  manifested. 

15.  Sumner  here  quotes  Senator  Butler,  of  South  Carolina, 
and  President  Washington,  to  support  his  position  that  no  law 
should  be  insisted  on  which  is  altogether  out  of  harmony  with 
the  sentiment  of  the  people  among  whom  it  is  to  be  executed. 
He  cites  recent  instances  to  show  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
could  not  be  enforced. 

1 6.  He  eulogizes  this  spirit  of  opposition  to  slavery,  and 
vindicates  it  by  classical  and  historical  illustrations. 

17.  "But  I  am  asked  what  I  offer  as  a  substitute  for  the 
legislation  which  I   denounce  ? "      In   the  omission   Sumner 
speaks  in  answer  to  this  question.     He  pronounces  the  fugi- 
tive slave  clause  purely  a  compact.     "  Each  Slate  in  the  exer- 
cise of  its  own  judgment,  will  determine  for  itself  the  precise 
extent  of  the  obligations  assumed"     Sumner  conceded  that  the 
States  were  prohibited  from  discharging  a  fugitive  from  ser- 
vice, but  he  held  that  the  State  was  entitled  to  determine  the 
mode  by  which  he  was  to  be  "  delivered  up."    This  should  be 
done  only  after  carefully  guarding  personal  liberty, — the  fugi- 
tive must  be  surrounded  with  "  every  shield  of  Law  and  Con- 


432  NOTES. 

stitution."  In  any  event,  the  proceeding  should  be  by  "  suit 
at  common  law,"  including  the  rights  of  habeas  corpus  and 
Trial  by  Jury.  See  Phillip's  interpretation  of  this,  p.  255. 

18.  Compare  this  with  Seward's  assertion  of  *'  the  higher 
law." 

19.  He  quotes  from  the  fathers  of  the  Church  to  the  effect 
that  unjust  and  unrighteous  laws  are  not  binding, — a  principle 
not  confined  to  the  Church.     Cicero  sustained  the  same  view, 
that  an  unjust  law  is  null.    "  The  conscience  of  each  person  is 
the  final  arbiter,"  says  Sumner. 

20.  Sumner  spoke  for  three  hours  and  three  quarters.     At 
the  conclusion  of  his  speech  a  debate  ensued  engaged  in  by 
many  Senators,   Northern  and  Southern.     Mr.   Clemens,  of 
Alabama,  Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  and  Mr.  Weller, 
of  California,  especially  attacked   Sumner.     Badger  quoted 
extensively  from  Sumner's  Faneuil  Hall  Speech  of  November, 
1850,*  charging  Sumner  with  responsibility  for  lawless  sedi- 
tion.    He  was  vigorously  arraigned  by  other  Senators,  many 
of  the  attacks  dealing  in  personalities.     Senators  Hale  and 
Chase  spoke  in  his  defence.     Chase  said  : 

"  The  argument  which  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  has 
addressed  to  us  to-day  was  not  an  assault  upon  the  Constitu- 
tion. It  was  a  noble  vindication  of  that  great  charter  of  gov- 
ernment from  the  perversions  of  the  advocates  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act.  .  .  .  What  has  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts asserted  ?  That  the  fugitive  servant  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution is  a  clause  of  compact  between  the  States,  and 
confers  no  legislative  power  upon  Congress.  He  has  arrayed 
history  and  reason  in  support  of  this  proposition  ;  and  I  avow 
my  conviction,  now  and  here,  that,  logically  and  historically, 
his  argument  is  impregnable,  entirely  impregnable.  .  .  . 

*  See  Sumner's  Works,  vol.  ii. 


CHARLES  SUMNER.  433 

"  Let  me  add,  Mr.  President,  that  in  my  judgment  the  speech 
of  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  will  mark  AN  ERA  in  Ameri- 
can history.  It  will  distinguish  the  day  when  the  advocates 
of  that  theory  of  governmental  policy,  and  constitutional  con- 
struction which  he  has  so  ably  defended  and  so  brilliantly 
illustrated,  no  longer  content  to  stand  on  the  defensive  in  the 
contest  with  Slavery,  boldly  attacked  the  very  citadel  cf  its 
power,  in  that  doctrine  of  finality  which  two  of  the  political 
parties  of  the  country,  through  their  national  organizations, 
are  endeavoring  to  establish  as  the  impregnable  defence  of  its 
usurpations." 

The  amendment  of  Sumner  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  47  to  4. 
Chase,  Wade,  Hale,  and  Sumner  were  the  only  ones  voting  in 
its  favor.  See  Sumner's  Works  t  vol.  iii.  ;  Congressional  Globe^ 
May-August,  1852. 

VOL.  II. — 28 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SANTA  CRUZ 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  DATE  stamped  below. 


12,'70(Pl251s8)2373-3A,l 


